Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS

Sir Waldron Smithers: On a point of Order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you whether your attention has been called to the fact that the Order Papers for today were available to hon. Members only about 25 minutes or half an hour ago, and that the Votes and Proceedings are not yet available to hon. Members? Of course, I am not criticising the staff; the trouble is due to the pressure put upon the House by the Government. Is it your opinion, Mr. Speaker, that this House of Commons should receive such short notice of proceedings, which does not give sufficient opportunity to hon. Members asking Questions?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me to decide. The Order Papers could not be put out earlier because the House was sitting. Whether the House sits or not is not my affair.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROXY MARRIAGES

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent decision of Lord Merriman in Apt, otherwise Magnus versus Apt, he will introduce legislation to make it clear in what conditions proxy marriages are to be recognised as valid.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I am not aware that any further elucidation of the law on this subject is needed. The effect of the

decision is, I am advised, that the matter is regulated by the law of the place where the ceremony is performed.

Mr. Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that it is not his policy to encourage proxy marriages?

Mr. Ede: Proxy marriages are not legal when performed in this country.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the effect of this decision will be that a girl in this country can get married in the Argentine without ever leaving London?

Mr. Ede: If she is prepared to take the husband on trust, why should I interfere?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Salford (Deputy Chief Constable)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the indignation created by refusing to confirm the appointment of the deputy chief constable of Salford to be chief constable as recommended by the Watch Committee; that this officer joined the Salford police force as a probationer constable, has passed through every phase of police work in the force and has been deputy chief constable nine years and acting chief for the last six months; and what are the reasons for disqualifying him for this post.

Mr. Ede: I have, on two occasions, discussed this matter at length with representatives of the local police authority, and have, in addition, given a personal interview to the candidate himself. I have no reason to doubt that, in the course of these interviews, all the material facts were brought to my notice. I greatly regret that I could not approve the watch committee's choice, but, after the most careful consideration, I could reach no other conclusion than that the candidate whose name they submitted was unfit for the post of chief constable.

Mr. Hardy: In view of the fact that the Minister has not given the reason why this man has been disqualified, will he explain why he was refused confirmation by the Home Office before any interview had been arranged, and also whether he is aware that the Home Office approved the short list of six prior to the appointment being made?

Mr. Ede: The Home Office does not approve or disapprove the appointment. The Home Secretary does that, and I take the full responsibility in this matter. I pursued a course in this case which, I am told, is without precedent. I twice interviewed the watch committee in London, although they did not pay me the compliment of sending the chairman of the watch committee as one of their delegation to meet me. I also interviewed the candidate, and, as one who has given 40 years of his life to interviewing candidates for local government appointments, I say that if this man had appeared in front of me, and had been the best candidate, I should have readvertised the appointment.

Mr. Hardy: In view of the fact that this man had 27 years' service and was condemned in an interview lasting 30 minutes, is the Minister aware that the Salford Watch Committee are receiving support from all parts of the country, including his own constituency, who have stated that they have appointed two chief constables neither of whom had served in any other police force?

Mr. Ede: If my constituency have said that, the people who stated it have misinformed Salford. Many queer things have been done in South Shields for which I am not responsible. I am responsible for this appointment. Never before has a Home Secretary granted an interview to a candidate whose application he was, considering. I gave the man not half an hour, but three-quarters of an hour, and I venture to say that is a longer time than the Salford Watch Committee gave to any of the other candidates they interviewed.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, in his opinion, this deputy chief constable of Salford is in any way inefficient for the job?

Mr. Ede: He is inefficient for the job of chief constable of Salford.

Mr. McAdam: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that he is more capable of judging the capabilities of an officer than those who have been controlling the officer for some years past?

Mr. Ede: The difficulty is that the law places a certain responsibility upon me. I have to discharge that responsibility in accordance with my own conscience. I make no reflection on the good faith of

the Salford Watch Committee. They have discharged their responsibility. I have discharged mine. I regret that our views do not coincide.

Mr. Hardy: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.

Metropolitan Police (Strength)

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the reduced physical standards that have been laid down for recruits for the Metropolitan Police; whether, in spite of this, the necessary numbers have been passed; what is the present strength; and what is the total authorised establishment.

Mr. Ede: The only alteration in physical standards was the reduction, in June, 1946, of the minimum height for recruits from 5 ft. 9 in. to 5 ft. 8 in. Since 1st January, 1946, 2,658 men have joined the Metropolitan Police Force, including 233 under 5 ft. 9 in. The total male strength is 14,850, and the authorised establishment is 19,741.

Sir R. Glyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any other steps to bring the force up to its establishment, and thus relieve the pressure on the existing constables?

Mr. Ede: I am doing all I can to increase the strength of the force, and since April, 1946, there has been a net increase in the strength of the force of 1,117. I hope that suitable men will apply for enrolment in this force.

Shot Civilian's Dependants (Aid)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what official means exist of providing for the dependants in necessitous circumstances of citizens who may have been gravely injured or lost their lives in going to the assistance of the law by endeavouring to detain criminals in the act of committing, or immediately after the commission of, a crime.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation will be paid to the widow of Mr. de Antiquis who was killed whilst assisting the police, and out of what Department fund.

Mr. Byers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements exist for granting compensation to members of the public injured when assisting the course of justice or to their dependants if fatal injuries are sustained.

Mr. William Wells: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any provision exists for compensating out of public funds the widow and children of Mr. Alec de Antiquis, who was killed while carrying out his duties as a citizen in an exemplary manner, and, if not, whether he will make special provision for them.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is considering making some recognition to the widow and dependants of Mr. Alec de Antiquis, who was killed while attempting to prevent the escape of three gunmen in the West End of London on 28th April, if necessary, by asking this House to award a special grant to the widow and six children of this gallant citizen

Mr. Ede: I am sure the House would desire me to express their sympathy with the wife and orphans of this man, who lost his life voluntarily discharging the duties of a good citizen. The question of making an appropriate grant from the Metropolitan Police Fund is receiving my sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Smith: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, which I am sure will be appreciated, may I ask him whether he will agree that it would be very undesirable if the sole means of compensating the dependants of loyal and law abiding citizens were to be private benevolence?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I hoped the final sentence of my answer would indicate that I intend to give practical recognition of my views on that point, and I hope I shall have the general support of the House.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. McGovern: In a case of this description, is not such a man assisting to combat the enemy as much as a man in the field of battle, and will it not be more dignified to see that in these circumstances consideration is given to the granting of a pension?

Mr. Ede: I must have regard to what my statutory powers in the matter may be. I hope that when the House hears what I propose, they will feel that I have given adequate recognition to what this man has done. If I may be allowed to say so, I hope I shall be able to put the widow and children in a position which is no worse than that in which they would have been had the man survived. The House will appreciate that the machinery for doing these very desirable things is sometimes very difficult, in view of statutory limitations, but I will ask the House to empower me to do the right thing if, in fact, the Statutes at the moment prevent me.

Mr. Eden: While endorsing entirely what the right hon. Gentleman has said and the act which he proposes, may I ask him to be good enough to inform the House when he has come to a conclusion as to what action he can take?

Mr. Ede: Yes, I think perhaps I can arrange for a Question to be put down.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that we have had a case of a similar nature in the City of Glasgow, would any action recommended by my right hon. Friend in the present case be directed to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Ede: If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State communicates with me, I will see that he and I walk in step in this matter.

Armed Criminals

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the public is concerned at the alarming increase in cases of robbery or attempted robbery with violence by armed men in the Metropolis; how many such cases have been reported since 1st January, 1947; and in how many instances the culprits have been convicted.

Mr. Ede: During the first four months of this year, 25 robberies occurred in the Metropolitan Police district where a firearm was known to have been used. Eight of these cases have been cleared up, involving the arrest of 14 persons, 13 of whom have been convicted and one of whom is awaiting trial. The Commissioner of Police is giving every attention to dealing with this series of crimes.

Mr. Smith: Is it not really astonishing that so many crimes of this nature should escape solution, and can nothing be done to tighten up public security in this regard?

Mr. Ede: I imagine that criminals of this type are pretty astute, and that they take steps to assure themselves that the coast is reasonably clear before they commit their crimes. I think the number of detections that I have been able to announce is not unsatisfactory, having regard to the number of desperate men there are about at this time, but the Commissioner of Police and myself are fully seized of the importance of putting down this form of lawlessness, and I am quite sure that we shall have the support of all law-abiding citizens in the efforts we make to achieve our object.

Mr. Austin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the main, the illegal possession of firearms is punished in the lightest possible way by the magistrates, who are not using the maximum powers they possess? Would my right hon. Friend consider issuing a recommendation to the magistrates for the imposition of maximum sentences for illegal possession of firearms, or coming to the House for further powers to increase those punishments?

Mr. Ede: It is my endeavour to issue as few recommendations as possible to magistrates because, having been a magistrate myself, I know the resentment with which the Home Secretary's circulars are sometimes received, but I have no doubt that the question put by my hon. Friend will draw the attention of magistrates to this matter, and I hope they can feel that the House is behind them in seeing that the law is enforced.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power with a view to the immediate termination of blackout conditions in the streets, which give these thugs an excellent opportunity of making their escape?

Mr. Scollan: Is it the case, as I have been told, that the police are sometimes very badly handicapped in that they have not sufficient power, and that in cases where they know they could make the necessary arrest they are thereby handi-

capped? If this is the case, will not my right hon. Friend ask the House for further powers?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. One has to be very careful how one arms the police with additional powers. I am quite sure of this. The police themselves are very keen to bring this form of crime to an end, for, after all, they quite frequently are the persons most in danger from the use of these illegal weapons.

Housing

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, owing to the impossibility of obtaining dwelling accommodation, many county constabularies are unable to provide sufficient police officers in districts which have grown up since 1939 and, in consequence, the burden on existing police officers is becoming severe; and whether he will arrange to acquire from the Ministry of Health a uniform prefabricated type of house on priority terms that can be erected for the use of police officers in rural and semi-urban areas.

Mr. Ede: All the temporary prefabricated houses provided under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, have been allocated in accordance with the terms of that Act to housing authorities, and the demands are such that the share available for police officers is small. The question whether the provision of houses for the police can be accelerated by the use of any other type of prefabricated house is being studied as such houses become available.

Sir R. Glyn: Could the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to county constabularies in certain districts where large populations have recently sprung up, and where it is impossible to place constables owing to the inadequacy of housing at the present time?

Mr. Ede: I have those areas particularly in mind. As I have moved about the country I have been in consultation with chief constables, standing joint committees and county district housing authorities.

Flogging

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases of robbery with violence since 1st January, 1947, punishment by flogging has been ordered.

Mr. Ede: In 10 cases between 1st January and 31st March, 1947.

Mr. Smith: But does not criminal history show that the ruffians who engage in this form of lawlessness are extremely tender about their own skins; and will the right hon. Gentleman do whatever may lie in his power to popularise this simple but salutary deterrent?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I should imagine there is no more controversial matter connected with the administration of my Department than the efficacy of flogging.

Mr. McGovern: Is the Home Secretary aware that a large number of these forms of violence with arms are committed by men who have deserted from the Forces; and would not the most practical thing be for the Government to consider granting an amnesty to these men, in order to get them away from these evil conditions?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I am not convinced myself that that would be the most efficacious way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of To in his original answer. What was the total number of convictions of which the figure of 10 was a proportion?

Mr. Ede: I would ask the hon. Member to give me notice of that.

Mr. John Paton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee on Corporal Punishment, after examining a mass of evidence on this subject, came to the conclusion that flogging was futile as a deterrent to these crimes; and in his forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill will he take steps to abolish this barbarous punishment?

Mr. Ede: The statement of my hon. Friend with regard to the report of that committee is accurate I must ask the House to await the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD (REPORT)

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the annual report of the Racecourse Betting Control Board will be published; and for

what reason the publication has been delayed.

Mr. Ede: I expect to lay the report before Parliament this month, which will be no later than is usual.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (RESIDENCE PERMITS)

Mr. Mulvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that natives of Northern Ireland, who had been absent from that area prior to January, 1940, have since their return been granted residence permits for the duration of the Order, thus entitling them to their United Kingdom franchise rights, while other natives of Northern Ireland, since their return, are granted residence permits renewable periodically, thus depriving them of similar franchise rights; what is the reason for this differentiation; and if he will take steps, pending the withdrawal of the Residence Permits (Transitional) Order, 1942, to secure their franchise rights for all natives of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I am informed that it is the regular practice of the Northern Ireland authorities to issue a permit, valid for the duration of the Order, to all natives of Northern Ireland who fall within the ambit of the Residence in Northern Ireland (Restriction) Order, 1942, so that the second and third parts of the Question do not arise.

Mr. Mulvey: Will my right hon. Friend give advice that in regard to the natives of Northern Ireland who are on temporary residence permits the matter should be reconsidered?

Mr. Ede: I am perfectly willing to consider and to take up with the authorities of Northern Ireland any cases my hon. Friend cares to submit to me.

Mr. Mulvey: Will my right hon. Friend bring this Residence Permits Order to an end and stop the inconvenience caused to employers in Northern Ireland, and thus prevent the restriction of movement of Irish people from one part of the country to another?

Mr. Ede: That is too large a matter to deal with in answer to a supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOP HOURS (PROPOSED LEGISLATION)

Mr. Leslie: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (I1) whether he will publish the evidence given before the Gowers Committee on Shop Hours and make it available to Members of this House;
(2) if he is yet able to announce his intentions with respect to the report of the Gowers Committee on Shop Hours.

Mr. Ede: It is the intention of the Government to introduce, when opportunity offers, legislation on the lines proposed by the committee. The general effect of the evidence—which was voluminous—is carefully and impartially set out in the report, and in present circumstances I do not think the printing of the evidence could be justified.

Mr. Leslie: Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is very essential for this House to have before it the evidence on which this report was based, because the report is certainly contrary to the views of those who have an intimate knowledge of shop life?

Mr. Ede: The report, which I have read, seems to me to set out impartially the evidence that was submitted on both sides. Many people claim to have a knowledge of shop life, but they do not all agree as to what it is like.

Sir Patrick Hannon: In view of the recommendations of the committee—while, of course, the public convenience must be considered above all else—will the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the circumstances of the shop assistants and the effect upon them?

Mr. Ede: In framing any legislation I may have to submit to the House I will bear in mind not merely the recommendations in the report, but the effect of this form of employment and activity on all sections of the community.

Oral Answers to Questions — BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (DIETARY PUNISHMENT)

Mr. G. Lang: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement with regard to dietary punishment in Borstal institutions.

Mr. Ede: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the difficulty in this matter is to provide a satisfactory alternative to dietary punishment for enforcing discipline on recalcitrant and refractory lads. I am anxious to find an alternative, and I have certain proposals in view for this purpose, but before they can be finally settled consultation with various authorities is necessary and this has not yet been completed. For this reason, I am not yet in a position to make an announcement about these proposals, but I will do so as soon as possible.

Mr. Lang: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and have no desire to embarrass him, may I ask if he is aware that I first raised this matter nearly a year ago in an Adjournment Debate, and asked a Question again six months ago; and can he give any indication how far his inquiries have reached?

Mr. Ede: I think I can say that I am approaching the position where I shall be able to announce a decision.

Mr. McKinlay: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how dietary punishment affects the people in Jarrow, who have returned a Labour candidate?

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL SENTENCE (MEDICAL INQUIRIES)

Mr. Lang: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when, and by whom, application was made for an examination of the mental condition of Thomas John Ley, recently under sentence of death.

Mr. Ede: Consideration of the question whether a medical inquiry shall be held into the mental condition of a prisoner under sentence of death does not depend on the receipt of an application. It is my duty in every capital case to consider whether any question arises as to the prisoner's state of mind, and to order a medical examination whenever I have reason to think further inquiry desirable.

Mr. Lang: But does my right hon. Friend not realise that the defence of insanity was never raised at the trial, and was never raised in the Court of Criminal Appeal; and in view of the general disquiet about this case, will he assure the House that this is not a trial by doctors to supersede a trial by jury?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I am not bound in my consideration of the case by what has been submitted either to the lower court or to the Court of Criminal Appeal. I have to examine all the documents—and they are many and various—which come into my possession with regard to each individual case. If I have any doubt as to the mental stability of the person who has been sentenced to death it is my duty to order a medical inquiry. If that medical inquiry takes a certain course, the matter is then taken completely out of my hands.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Rent Tribunal Applicants (Protection)

Mr. William: Shepherd asked the Minister of Health if he has given consideration to the statement made by Mr. Michael Marcus, chairman of the East London Rent Tribunal, that applicants to that tribunal suffered serious physical injury at the hands of landlords or their hirelings; and what action is proposed to protect applicants.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): My attention has been called to this statement. Applicants suffering or fearing such assaults should report the matter to the police who will do all they can to assist.

Mr. Shepherd: But is the Minister able to say that this statement was accurate?

Mr. Bevan: It is not competent for me at the moment to make any comment upon whether it is accurate or inaccurate. All I can say is, that these persons are protected by law if they appeal to the law.

Mr. Shepherd: Surely, if the Minister appoints these chairmen it is his duty to see that they do not issue statements which alarm the public?

Mr. Bevan: I do not want to interfere with these chairmen too much.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the serious nature of the statement made by the chairman of the tribunal, has the Minister asked him on what evidence he based that statement?

Mr. Bevan: It is not necessary for me to do so. If citizens fear assault, or if they have been assaulted, they can make use of appeal to the law. I am not going

to interfere with these tribunals unnecessarily.

Mr. Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, since this statement, there have, in fact, been any such appeals from persons who claim that this statement is true?

Mr. Bevan: I have not heard of any

1947 Programme

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Health if he has now considered the housing programme for 1947 in the light of the industrial dislocation caused by the fuel crisis; and what effect this is likely to have on the number of houses to be built.

Mr. Bevan: I have considered the housing programme for 1947 in the light of the conditions which have prevailed during the winter. The effect of these conditions both on building and even more on the production of building materials has been serious. It will reduce substantially the rates at which houses already under construction can be completed and, consequently, at which further houses can be started this year. I am including a full statement in the published monthly return which will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House, or give us some idea, what will be the total number of completions this year?

Mr. Bevan: I think that probably it will be as well for hon. Members to look at this statement in the monthly return. I was in this difficulty; that if I were to try to make a statement to the House after Questions on this very important matter it would be unduly long; but that if, on the other hand, I were to try to give a short answer it would be inadequate. I thought it was much better to make an addendum to the monthly return.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Does the right hon. Gentleman now realise how wise he was when he published the original programme to provide himself with alibis?

Mr. Bevan: But then, I am always wise.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the results of the industrial dislocation, will the right hon. Gentleman consider alter-


ing the targets at the zonal conferences which took place to fix the time, as the targets appear to have been fixed on a mathematical basis?

Mr. Bevan: They were, in fact, not targets at all, as the hon. and gallant Member knows. They were merely attempts to bring the allocations in a zonal area in reasonable relationship to the physical capacity of the building industry in that area. The allocations are not going to be affected.

Prefabricated Houses (Export)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Health how many prefabricated houses were exported to Holland during 1946; and what was the cost per house.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 3rd April to a Question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Col. Lipton), of which I am sending him a copy. am informed that there is no record of the export of any other structures of this nature.

Review of Contributions

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Health if he has yet considered whether it is expedient that an order be made under Section 16 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946; and whether he intends to lay before the Commons House of Parliament a report in conformity with the provisions of the said section.

Mr. Bevan: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this matter in the near future.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Does not the Minister realise that the Act in question places an obligation on him to take this matter into consideration immediately after the beginning of December, 1946, and if, on consideration, he is not going to make such an Order, to report thereon to the House? Does he not his agree that he is taking as long to make up his mind on this matter as he is in getting the houses?

Mr. Bevan: I am perfectly aware of my statutory obligations in this matter and, of course, I shall conform with them. But as the housing authorities have handed over to the building industry about 100,000 more houses than the building industry can start, there is, obviously, no question at all of this delaying building.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman carried out the consultations he must have under Subsection (6) of this Section? Will he give a report on that?

Mr. Bevan: Consultations have not yet started.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Building Licences

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that licences granted to private builders for building new houses are often issued to cover several houses each; that in a number of cases where such a licence was issued to a builder outside the London area before 25th February, one or more of the houses included in the licence had been begun before that date while others in the same licence had not been started; that the consequent effect of the Order permitting an increase of ££100 in the maximum price of houses licensed before 25th February is to make such concessions inapplicable to these houses not yet started, without any power for the local authority to vary the conditions in the licence; and whether he will modify the terms of the Order to rectify this anomaly.

Mr. Bevan: It is open to a private builder to ask the local authority to revoke a licence in so far as it applies to houses on which work has not been started, and to apply for a new licence in respect of these houses under the revised conditions.

Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his own Ministry refused a request of the Cheltenham authority to take action in this matter?

Mr. Bevan: I am not aware of the particulars. If the hon. Member will send them to me, I shall have them inquired into. But I cannot, at the moment, accept the construction he has placed upon this.

Subsidy

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health what revision is contemplated in


the basis of Annual Exchequer contributions as laid down in Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, in the light of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Bill.

Mr. Bevan: In considering the review of housing subsidy, all factors affecting the estimated cost of house building during the period for which subsidy is to be fixed are taken into consideration.

Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that if local authorities lose more by the reduction of subsidies than they gain by a reduction in the cost of sites this loss must be passed on in the form of increased rent, which is rather undesirable? Can he look very closely at this matter, as anomalies are very likely to arise?

Mr. Bevan: I do not think local authorities are dissatisfied with the housing subsidy.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Is it not a fact that the cost of sites is a very small element in the cost of houses as a whole?

Mr. Sparks: The Minister has misunderstood my question. My question referred to the position under the Town and Country Planning Bill, under which there will be a reduction in the cost of sites which, in turn, will affect scales of subsidies.

Mr. Bevan: It is extremely difficult to say in advance what is going to be the effect of the operation of an Act of Parliament which is still a Bill. It will be soon enough to consider what the effect of that will be when we see it in operation.

Site Costs

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Health if site costs are included as part of the ceiling prices imposed on new houses, both in London and in the provinces.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Nurses (Shortage)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Minister of Health if he contemplates further improvement in the pay and conditions of service of the nursing profession, with increased scales of pensions and a general advance in the status of hospital nurses, as

an essential constituent part of national health service.

Mr. Bevan: The whole status and position of nurses will have to be reviewed in the light of the report of the Working Party on Recruitment and Training. Pending this review I cannot express an opinion on the Questions raised by the hon. Member.

Sir P. Hannon: Does the Minister realise that a serious situation is created owing to the shortage of nurses? Is he taking any definite steps to intensify the recruitment to the nursing profession?

Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Member knows, I am very much alive to this matter, arid there is an intense recruiting campaign going on all the time. Indeed, I believe that there is an exhibition in Birmingham at the moment in connection with it. I am very anxious to get this report. Immediately I have it I shall be able to consider what to do.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the right hon, Gentleman take great care to preserve the interests of those nurses who have served for many years, but who do not happen to have passed certain examinations, and do not happen to hold certain certificates, and who, therefore, are in danger of being pushed out because of the change in the basis of entry into the profession? If they were to go it would be a great loss to the hospitals, for they are very valuable nurses.

Mr. Bevan: That is in mind.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: When is the House likely to be able to read the report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred?

Mr. Bevan: I have not yet had it myself.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Minister of Health if he has had under consideration the embarrassing situation which has arisen in hospital administration in Birmingham owing to shortage of nurses; and if he proposes to intensify the campaign for recruitment of nurses in consultation with the health departments of local authorities.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member will be aware of the extensive Nursing Exhibition held in Birmingham from 29th April to 3rd May to encourage recruitment to the nursing profession.

Sir P. Hannon: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when he contemplates an improvement in the conditions of service and the remuneration of nurses?

Mr. Bevan: It would be extremely discourteous of me to appoint a working party to make a report and then to anticipate them by a public statement.

Women Doctors (Training)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the shortage of women doctors, what additional facilities are being provided for training medical students.

Mr. Bevan: All provincial medical schools admit women students up to between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the annual intake, and the London schools have now all agreed to take a proportion of women as soon as accommodation can be provided. This should be ready for the 1947–48 session.

Mr. Freeman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many applicants are still waiting, and whether the facilities provided will absorb all those applicants? There are not sufficient women doctors to meet the demands.

Mr. Bevan: There are waiting lists for both men and women.

Aural Aids

Mr. Thomas Lewis: asked the Minister of Health what progress he has made with regard to the manufacture and distribution of aural aid outfits at reasonable prices.

Mr. Bevan: My bright hon. Friend the Minister of Supply has already placed contracts for the manufacture of these aids. He hopes that enough will be available to make a start with distribution when the National Health Service begins. They will then be available without charge to patients for whom they are prescribed.

Ambulances (Local Authorities)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health what arrangements have been made centrally with those in control of the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the British Red Cross Society for the taking over or use of their ambulances by local health authorities under the National Health Service Acts.

Mr. Bevan: The statutory duty rests on local health authorities, who may make arrangements for the use of voluntary bodies' vehicles and staff. No arrangements are, therefore, being made centrally.

Mr. Hastings: Have any instructions been sent from the central authorities to the local branches?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, the local authorities are being made aware of their statutory rights in this matter, but there have been no central directions.

Mr. Hastings: I was referring to the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the British Red Cross Society, and I want to know whether instructions have been given. by those organisations to their local branches.

Mr. Bevan: I do not know; and, of course, I have no responsibility for them, for they are voluntary organisations.

City of London (Employees' Strike)

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the dead are lying unburied, streets remain uncleaned and public conveniences are closed in the City of London through unofficial strikes; and what action His Majesty's Government have taken in the matter in the interests of health and humanity and to prevent a recurrence of such a state of affairs.

Mr. Bevan: I am aware that the Corporation of London are unable to arrange for burials in their own cemetery, and that they have had to suspend street cleansing and to close public conveniences. While I much regret the inconvenience which is caused to the public, I do not consider that any immediate danger to public health is threatened, but I am keeping the situation under review.

Sir J. Lucas: Will the Minister, in view of this very unsatisfactory state of affairs, promise every possible assistance to the local authority should they need it, and if they are unable or unwilling to take action themselves will he take it for them?

Mr. Bevan: I regard the stoppage of the workers who are responsible for burying and for scavenging, and other services of a vital health nature, as fundamentally irresponsible. If this strike does not end very quickly, I shall take action.

Mr. Scollan: To what year does this Question refer—the year of the Great Plague?

Hon. Members: Yes

Mr. Gallacher: As the irresponsibility may be on the part of those who impose conditions that make such a strike possible, will the right hon. Gentleman take up with the local authorities the question of the working conditions of the men?

Mr. Bevan: There is no body of workers in Great Britain who have made available to them better conciliation machinery than the employees of local authorities. I consider that suspension of scavenging and burying is an act of utter irresponsibility.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Young Children (Teachers)

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Minister of Education what steps are being taken to improve recruitment for work in infant and nursery schools.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): The first essential step is to extend facilities for training and this is being (lone so far as possible. The women's training colleges, both emergency and permanent, are being expanded and more attention is being given to the training of teachers for work with young children. I am discussing with the Interim Committee for Teachers what further steps can be taken to secure that more students are admitted for this form of work and what other measures can be taken to make this branch of the teaching service more attractive.

Mrs. Manning: In view of the very grave shortage that exists for teachers for young children, will my right hon. Friend take steps to visit secondary schools to see, whether girls can be recruited?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is no use recruiting at this stage unless we have somewhere to put the recruits. It is not that we are short of applicants but rather that we are short of training places for them.

Mrs. Manning: If I could direct the attention of my right hon. Friend to houses which would be suitable would he have a look at them?

Mr. Tomlinson: We are already taking houses at a very rapid rate with a view

to turning them into emergency colleges. This question is being looked at with that in mind.

Emergency Training (Completed Courses)

Mr. Grey: asked the Minister of Education how many students have completed a course of training in the teachers emergency training colleges since their inception; how many satisfied the examiners; and how many successful trainees have been absorbed into teaching posts.

Mr. Tomlinson: Up to the 24th April, 1947, 2,514 students completed a course of training under the Emergency Training Scheme. Of these students only 12 were not adjudged to have completed the course satisfactorily, but a considerably larger number were withdrawn from the courses before they were completed. I am satisfied that practically all the teachers who were qualified through the emergency scheme have found teaching posts. The latest returns which I have received covering four of the colleges, show that out of 681 students only three were known not to have obtained posts two months after the end of the course.

Mrs. Manning: Can my right hon. Friend give any idea of the proportion of these emergency trainees who have gone into senior schools?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, I could not do that without notice.

School Records

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Education what special information is to be collected by teachers concerning their pupils; if he will ensure that the information is kept secret and up to what age it is to be taken; and, if the information covers more than the health records of each child, if he will give instructions that no references to the political views of parents will be recorded.

Mr. Tomlinson: For the purposes of the school medical records of children, the only particulars which teachers are asked to supply are the name, age and address of the child, the name of the school he attends and records of his school attendance and educational progress. I do not prescribe forms of school record for other purposes, but I am proposing shortly to give some guidance to local education


authorities and teachers about the scope and content of school records. There can be no question of teachers being asked to refer to the political views of parents.

Sir R. Young: When further action is taken in reference to the homes of parents, will my right hon. Friend ensure that that information is not given without the knowledge of the parents?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, I will do that.

Technical College Teachers (Salaries)

Mrs. Ridealgh: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware that a teacher in a London technical college, promoted to the new senior assistant scale on 1st April, 1945, was awarded a correct position ££73 lower than he could reasonably have attained if not promoted, lower also than the position held previously on the graduate scale; and, as this violates the spirit of Clause 13 (b) (I) of the Burnham Technical Report, if he will take steps to remedy this injustice.

Mr. Tomlinson: I assume that the particular case the hon. Member has in mind is that about which she has previously written to me. On the facts available, the salary for this teacher has been correctly assessed and could be altered only after amendment of the relevant Burnham Report. It rests with the Burnham Committee to make any recommendations for amendment of their reports.

Mrs. Ridealgh: asked the Minister of Education what action he proposes to remedy the grievances of teachers in technical colleges who were on the maximum of the assistant scale with ££100 for special responsibility and who were promoted to the senior assistant scale on 1st April, 1946, but were awarded no increment on promotion, although under Clause 13 (b) (I) they should have been appointed at the next higher point on the senior assistant scale, namely ££650.

Mr. Tomlinson: I should be glad if my hon. Friend would furnish me with details of any cases of the type to which she refers, since I am not aware that salaries are being assessed by local education authorities on the basis described.

Mrs. Ridealgh: Would the Minister look into the case I have sent to him, because there the man is receiving less under this new scale than he had previously?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, but that is just an individual case and it is an anomaly which arises from a decision having been made between two decisions of the Burnham Committee. I am going into it at the moment.

Out-of-School Activities

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Education whether a local education authority when advertising for assistant teachers is acting in accordance with the policy of his Department in insisting on out-of-school activities.

Mr. Tomlinson: Under paragraph 4 (3) of the Second Schedule to the Primary and Secondary Schools (Grant Conditions) Regulations a teacher may not be required to perform any duties except such as are connected with the work of the school.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the teaching profession have never quibbled about doing outside work, but they resent having it as a stipulation? If I bring a case to his notice, will he inform the authority concerned that this should not be done?

Mr. Tomlinson: I will certainly look at it, but the phrase "out-of-school activities" is a wide one, and there may be some discussion as to what are out-of-school activities and what are not.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: May I ask d the ban on demanding a certain amount of out-of-school activity applies also to getting a teacher to take part in a youth service, which is necessarily a part of a local education authority's activities?

Mr. Tomlinson: That depends upon the interpretation of the term "out-of-school activities," and whether the youth service is associated definitely with the school.

School Allowances, Cardiff

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education the rate of grant per child allotted by the Cardiff authority for children over the age of II years in unreorganised schools; and what is the comparative rate of grant for Cardiff secondary schools.

Mr. Tomlinson: I understand that the allowance made by the Cardiff authority in respect of books, stationery and equipment for children over II years of age in unreorganised schools is at the rate of


10s. per child. The corresponding allowances for secondary schools which are all grammar schools are at the rate of 14s. per child for text-books and 28s. per child for other books, stationery and office expenses.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the children who are over the age of II in these schools which the authority fail to reorganise, are allowed 10s. a head, and the total for the children in secondary grammar schools is £2 10s. a head, and does he think this is satisfactory?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, and I think that with the raising of the school-leaving age, a demand for the higher figure will be made by those below it.

School Reorganisation, Cardiff

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education whether, in order to give the schoolchildren of Cardiff the benefits of free secondary education under the 1944 Act, he will consult with the Cardiff authority with a view, as a temporary measure, to reorganising their schools within the existing accommodation.

Mr. Tomlinson: Until new secondary schools can be built under the development plan, I should be happy to consider suitable proposals for temporary reorganisation within existing accommodation, and I am informing the authority accordingly.

Mr. Thomas: Thank you very much.

Languages

Mr. King: asked the Minister of Education what percentage of 12-year old boys educated under the national system will, during the current term, be learning French. German and Latin, respectively.

Mr. Tomlinson: The content of the curriculum is primarily a matter for the school authorities and no statistics are available showing the numbers and ages of pupils taking particular subjects.

Dartmouth College (Standard)

Mr. King: asked the Minister of Education what percentage of 12-year-old boys educated under the national system will, during the current term, be educated on a curriculum which will enable them to succeed in the examination held at the age of 13 years in order to select candidates for the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth.

Mr. Tomlinson: On the basis on which entry to the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, is at present determined, the field of potential candidates from schools within the national system is limited to pupils receiving a grammar school type of education who are taking the particular subjects required in the examination. The number of the latter is not known but the percentage of boys in the 12 year age group who are in grammar schools is approximately 28.7.

Mr. King: Is not that further evidence of the wisdom of the announcement made yesterday?

Teachers (Intake)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Education what was the intake of teachers into the schools under his control during January, February and March, respectively.

Mr. Tomlinson: Separate figures for each month are not available. The figures for the quarter ending 31st March last are at present being analysed and I will send them to the hon. Member as soon as they are ready.

Size of Classes

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Education the present average size of, the classes in the schools under his control and the estimated increase as a result of the raising of the school age.

Mr. Tomlinson: The average size or classes in primary and secondary schools as a whole was 33.5 in January, 1946, the last date for which figures are yet available. Since my plans for increasing the number of teachers provide for more than sufficient teachers for the extra age group, this figure will be progressively reduced in the next few years.

Sir T. Moore: I asked in the second part of my Question what is the increase that the right hon. Gentleman thinks will take place.

Mr. Tomlinson: I could not give it without further notice, except to the extent which I -have already indicated.

British Teachers, United States (Allowance)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Education what extra allowances he is granting to British teachers now in the


U.S.A., under an exchange arrangement, in view of the rapidly rising cost of living in the U.S.A.

Mr. Tomlinson: A grant of £75 has been paid to each teacher in respect of the current academic year. No grant has been given in previous years, and I am not prepared to give an additional grant to the teachers who are at present in the United States.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this grant does not catch up with rising prices in the United States, and is it not undesirable that these teachers, who are unofficial ambassadors of this country, should be reduced to the position of poor relations owing to the insane abandonment of price controls by the Washington administration?

Mr. Tomlinson: There has been a readjustment since the teachers went, and a grant was made. The grant for next year is being considered. I think it would be impossible to change grants every time there was a change in the cost of living.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a teacher who went from my constituency under this scheme not only has found it quite impossible to travel in the. United States, and thereby cannot get the best benefit from her tour, but is also having to do work in the evenings in order to maintain herself?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am receiving reports on what is taking place, but I would point out that they have not gone on a joy ride.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Illegal Strikes

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are taken to inquire into the causes of all illegal strikes.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): It is the normal responsibility of my Department to inquire into the causes and circumstances of any dispute, whether illegal or otherwise.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Russia if a man participates in an illegal strike his ration card is withdrawn?

Mr. Isaacs: I have not been there, so I cannot say.

Sir W. Smithers: The right hon. Gentleman ought to go and see.

Ex-Service Personnel

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-officers and other ranks were registered as unemployed at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Isaacs: The numbers of ex-Service men and women registered as unemployed at 14th April were 70,024 and 4,600 respectively, of whom 6,816 and 213 were exofficers registered with the Appointments Department. Separate figures for officers registered at employment exchanges are not available.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making special arrangements so that these men can be given the opportunity to go back into the fighting Services if they should so desire? I am sure that many of them would do that if arrangements were made.

Mr. Isaacs: I am not sure whether such an arrangement is within my scope. I think the object which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind is worthy of examination, and I will take the matter up.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Sterling Balances (Egypt)

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement regarding the recent visit paid to Cairo by British financial experts; and if the negotiations which took place were secret.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the communique issued on 3rd March, to which at present I have nothing to add.

Brigadier Mackeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman now make every effort to convince the people in Egypt that the scaling down of debts is in their interest as well as ours? I ask him to bear in mind that at the moment our publicity in the Middle East is so bad that our case is not getting over.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the speech of my right hon. Friend a night or two ago probably will help to rectify the point Mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Minister say, in view of the many authoritative statements that have been made in Egypt, why he is unwilling to make a statement of the policy of H.M. Government?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is not a question of being unwilling. The answer I gave was that at the moment there was nothing to add to the statement made on 3rd March.

Mr. W. Fletcher: If the machinery for putting over the very strong statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is inadequate, will the Financial Secretary see that that machinery is improved so that the people of Egypt do realise the determination of this country not to be done down for the debt incurred in saving Egypt?

Mr. Scollan: Is it not a case that previous Governments generally had the support of the British Press in putting over their case, and now the position is that most of the Press of this country is hostile to the present Government?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Financial Secretary said that he cannot add to the official communique, but will he not say something in view of the Egyptian demands for the transfer of the Suez Canal and Anglo-Egyptian oilfield shares?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Question dealt with a recent visit to Cairo by British financial experts and the negotiations which took place there. I have replied to that Question.

P.A.Y.E. Payments

Mr. Richard Law: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that under the 1947/48 system of Pay As You Earn, in which a number of codes are grouped together, the result in some cases is a sharp rise in the amount of tax deducted per week whereby those earning a 'smaller salary now pay as much per week as those earning considerably more; and if he will take steps to remedy this state of affairs.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon. Friend cannot agree that the P.A.Y.E. tables have the result suggested by the hon. Member; but, if he will be good enough to furnish me with particulars of the cases he has in mind, I will look into the matter.

Civil Servants, Armed Forces (Pay)

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what decision has now been reached about making up the pay of young civil servants called up to the Forces.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The question of making up the pay of young civil servants called up to the Forces is at present under consideration. I hope it will be possible to make an announcement shortly.

Major Lloyd: It has been under consideration for a very long time. Some time ago I asked a similar Question and had exactly the same reply.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think that is possible, but we hope that an announcement can be made shortly. These things take time.

Post-war Credits (Ex-Servicemen)

Mrs. Manning: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why ex-Servicemen are being required to sacrifice their postwar credits in order to liquidate arrears of income tax, due to wrong assessments of Service pay by the Income Tax Commissioners.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Ex-Servicemen are treated in the same way as other tax-payers in that any arrear is set off against the Postwar Credit for the year 1945–46. I am looking into the case about which my how. Friend wrote to me a day or two ago.

Mrs. Manning: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when the mistakes are mistakes of his own Department, made when these men were out of the country and so unable to put them right at the time, it would not be more generous, as well as more just, to spread these repayments over a long period so that the men should not feel the great loss which is incurred?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is exactly what we do. These payments are spread over a period by arrangement, and I can assure my hon. Friend that in those cases we are spreading the amount due over quite a considerable period.

Major Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving more publicity to the fact that it is possible for people to appeal


against notices of assessment within 21 days of their having been made?

Mr. Eccles: Would the Financial Secretary consider in a case—one of which I have brought to his notice—where the sum is greater than the repayments, forgiving the balance, because it is hard on a man, who really did not know what was happening, if he is docked of his postwar credit? Could not that be a full settlement?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: In some cases, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that does happen, but each case must be taken on its merits. One cannot lay down any general rule and forgive people simply because they happen to be in arrears.

Mr. James Callaghan: If the facts in this question are correct, is it not the case that a real debt is being satisfied by setting against it a future benefit, so that this must be to the great advantage of the men concerned?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: So far as postwar credits for 1945–46 are concerned, my right hon. Friend made an announcement during October to the effect that the Inland Revenue was to be instructed to set off what might be due against tax arrears, and the House agreed.

Mrs. Manning: Does my right hon. Friend feel that it is fair to refer to future benefit as if this were a benefit which might never accrue? Is it not the fact that these men regard this as a nest egg, and think this is a method of getting out of repayment of postwar credits?

Mr. Hall: The individual concerned can pay or have it set off. I cannot see that there is anything wrong in that. He can either pay now and have the nest egg, or go without the nest egg and have it set off.

Mr. Gallacher: Cannot these men who owe this money make a statement to the Chancellor on the same lines as the statement the Chancellor made the other day on Egypt?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL GALLERY PAINTINGS (CLEANING).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the drastic manner in

which the Velasquez paintings in the National Gallery have been cleaned; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This is a matter which falls within the discretion of those responsible for the management of the National Gallery.

Mr. Keeling: But as the Financial Secretary has answered the Question instead of asking for it to be disallowed, will he say whether he is aware that a great many people think that the Velasquez Philip IV has been very nearly ruined, and will he inquire whether the trustees are taking the best possible advice, including that of professional artists?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I understand that this matter does not concern me at all. If the hon. Gentleman required that information he should address his Question to the proper quarter.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the Minister tell us to whom it should be addressed in order that it may be quite clear that the too rapid cleaning of these pictures is causing considerable disquiet, and that the irrevocable damage to them is more important than "passing the buck" from one Minister to another?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the Business for next week, and at the same time any modification in the Business for tomorrow?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. In regard to Business tomorrow, we shall proceed with the Committee stage of the National Service Bill, which we hope to bring to a conclusion tomorrow, Friday. As a consequence, the Statistics of Trade Bill, Report stage and Third Reading, announced for tomorrow, will be postponed.

The Business for next week will be as follows:

Monday, 12th May—At the beginning of Business my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will propose a Motion for an humble Address to His Majesty, on the occasion of Their Majesties' return from South Africa.

Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, 12th, 13th and 14th May—Report stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill, being the first, second and third allotted days.

Thursday, 15th May—Supply (4th Allotted Day), Committee. The Supply day will be taken formally, and afterwards a Debate on Foreign Affairs will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday, 16th May—Conclusion of Debate on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: May I ask whether the Government will not reconsider the decision to rush the Town and Country Planning Bill Report stage through in three days? It is an extremely important and complicated Bill, affecting all classes of the population. There are more than 200 Government Amendments down already, and there will be a similar number of Opposition Amendments, and one of the days will almost certainly be entirely consumed by the recommittal Motion in the name of the Government. In these circumstances, could the Government not give more time for adequate consideration of the Bill?

Mr. Morrison: This was settled on the Allocation of Time Order. It was a decision of the House and I think we must leave it there.

Mr. Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that a decision of the House can never be modified? The Government brought about the original decision, and they only have to whip their Members into the Lobby to change it.

Mr. Morrison: I am aware that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has ambitions to be Leader of the Opposition, especially on Business, but he had better be careful about ambitions to become Leader of the House as well. This was debated on the Allocation of Time Order, and in fact an additional day was offered at that time, but it was specifically and somewhat indignantly objected to by the spokesman of the Opposition.

Mr. Hogg: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the brilliance of his repartee, and the dignity with which he conducts his present position, may I ask if it has not been apparent from the modification of Business for tomorrow how right we were when we protested two days

ago against his tactics then, and ape we not likely to be right again?

Mr. Keeling: Is the Leader of the House aware that when the Allocation of Time Motion was passed it was not known, and could not be known, that a large number of Clauses and a large number of Schedules would not even be discussed upstairs?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think it would be in Order if I were to go into the controversial history of these Bills under the Guillotine—

Mr. Keeling: It is a question of fact.

Mr. Morrison: I think it is a question of fact, but it is a question of what use—economical use—the Opposition makes of the time available.

Wing-Commander Millington: Will ray right hon. Friend sustain himself in getting this Business through, in view of the fact that now we have overwhelming evidence that the country is overwhelmingly behind us?

Sir John Mellor: The Leader of the House said that a decision of the House on allocation of time could not be changed. Is that correct, because on the Third Reading of the Transport Bill the decision of the House was changed, and a further amount of time was given by the Government? Surely it is quite incorrect to say that a decision of the House could not be changed?

Mr. Morrison: Of course it can be changed, if the Government put down another Motion, but that means more time, and we do not think we ought to be called upon to accept it. The time to have got more time was when the Allocation of Time Order was made. My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio offered another day, but it was specifically rejected.

Mr. Paton: In regard to the foreign affairs Debate, may I ask if it is the intention to allow a general Debate to range rather widely, as an increasing number of hon. Members are disquieted in regard to Far Eastern policy and wish to have that discussed?

Mr. Morrison: The Debate is on the Adjournment, and it is a matter for Mr. Speaker as to whom he calls.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he says there


was an offer of an additional day, that offer was made on the condition that we assented to the proposals for the Committee stage, and it has now been proved that we were quite right in thinking that the time allotted for the Committee stage was insufficient? Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman say that the additional day was offered in the belief that it was necessary, or unnecessary?

Mr. Morrison: It is really no good the hon. and learned Member trying to get the best of both worlds. The Government offered the day, and it was rejected at the time. The Opposition must take the responsibility, and must not come pleading another story now. We still take the view, both on this Bill and on another Bill, that the amount of time allowed for in Committee was adequate for the proper consideration of the Bill if the Committee had conducted itself as a Committee, instead of conducting itself as if it were the whole House. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Sir Waldron Smithers.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Mr. W. S. Morrison rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, may I call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, not for the first time among Ministers, has called in question in this House the proceedings of a Committee upstairs? I want to ask whether something could be done to stop the growing practice of breaking what is a Rule of the House, that we cannot criticise or comment upon proceedings upstairs. He used the actual phrase, "had the Committee conducted itself properly," and I suggest that is most improper.

Mr. Speaker: I think, and I have already given a Ruling on this matter, that the conduct of the Chair of a Committee is not a matter for discussion in the House. Presumably, the Committee had been properly conducted, and one cannot criticise the action of the Chairman.

Hon. Members: Withdraw

Mr. Morrison: If Mr. Speaker orders me to withdraw, I will withdraw. I will not unless. I made no reference to the Chairman, no criticism of the Chairman at all, nor did I allege that the Committee conducted itself in a disorderly way. If

hon. Members in Committee make speeches which are longer than they need be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—If hon. Members make speeches in Committee which are longer than they need be, and time becomes exhausted, it is not really fair to blame the Government. That makes no reflection on the Chairman of the Committee whatever.

Mr. Molson: On a point of Order. The Leader of the House has made a charge against the Members of a Committee which is sitting upstairs. That is a charge which is not made by the Minister in charge of the Bill. In reply to what the Leader of the House has said, if I might venture to quote something which was said upstairs, the Chairman explicitly said that there had been no obstruction in that Committee. I ask you to rule that it is improper for the Leader of the House, in discussing matters of Business here, to make charges against the conduct of Members in a Committee upstairs, which, under your Ruling, they are not allowed to reply to?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the Committee having reported to this House, one is entitled to read the proceedings of that Committee, and to form one's own opinion. I have expressed the view that if the Chairman has conducted the Committee properly, to criticise Members for taking too long over their speeches and that sort of thing is a little unfortunate.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: I did not ask anyone to withdraw anything. If I want anyone to withdraw, I will say so.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. Has it not been customary for many centuries in this House, when hon. Members have resented anything on which the Chair has expressed itself unfavourably, to invite the hon. or right hon. Gentlemen who have made use of such an unfortunate expression, to withdraw?

Mr. Speaker: Not at all. If I want anyone to withdraw, I shall ask them to do so.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of Order. Is it not the right of hon. Members to call out the word "Withdraw" when they resent something?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members are supposed always to conduct themselves in an


orderly manner. Sometimes, the shouting out of words like "Withdraw" too long and too vigorously can be slightly disorderly.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of Order. Do I understand that your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, is that we were not entitled, under the Rules of Order of this House, to shout "Withdraw"?

Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members were entitled to shout "Withdraw," I also was entitled to say that I thought it ought to stop.

Sir Waldron Smithers: May I ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been called to the Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of about 4o other hon. Members regarding the treatment of dispossessed farmers, in view of the fact that particulars of several hundred of alleged serious cases have been sent to him?

[That this House calls upon His Majesty's Government to set up a Royal Commission to inquire and to make recommendations concerning farmers and smallholders who have been dispossessed of their holdings since 1939.]

Would the right hon. Gentleman try to give time for a discussion on that important Motion, which affects the rights of the ordinary British citizen, and will he remember that the farmers of this country will find more than one use for the guillotine?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that we cannot find special time for that Motion. Perhaps the hon. Member would seek to

raise it on the Adjournment, or on a Supply Day, if that should offer.

Professor Savory: May I ask when it is proposed to take the Northern Ireland Bill, as it is important, when gentlemen have to be brought from overseas, that some lengthy notice should be given?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say when it will be taken. I gather, from the state of the Order Paper and the eagerness of hon. Members from Northern Ireland to take part in the Debate, that it is not likely to be overlooked, but I can promise the hon. Member that we shall not overlook it.

Mr. Yates: At what time is it proposed to conclude the discussion on the National Service Bill today? Is it possible to avoid a method for the discussion of the Bill similar to the unfortunate experience of last night?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say. It must depend on what progress is made.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as he professes to be a good House of Commons man, whether he considers it consistent with the dignity and the duties of the House of Commons that major Measures should be passed through the House without any discussion, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Morrison: I have said nothing to lead anybody to believe any such thing. Certainly there has been plenty of discussion about everything in this Parliament since we came here.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 122.

Division No. 196.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mitchison, G. R


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Gilzean, A.
Montague, F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Morley, R


Alpass, J. H.
Gooch, E. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (L'wish'm, E.)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mort, D. L


Austin, H. Lewis
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Moyle, A.


Awbery, S. S.
Grey, C. F.
Mulvey, A.


Ayles, W. H.
Grierson, E.
Nally, W.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Naylor, T. E


Bacon, Miss A.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Balfour, A.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Barstow, P. G.
Gunter, R. J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Barton, C.
Guy, W. H.
Oldfield, W. H.


Battley, J. R.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Oliver, G. H.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hale, Leslie
Parker, J.


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hall, W. G.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Benson, G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R,
Pearson, A.


Beswick, F.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pearl, Capt T. F.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hardy, E. A.
Piratin, P.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Binns, J.
Haworth, J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Blackburn, A. R.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Price, M. Philips


Boardman, H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Proctor, W. T.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hewitson, Captain M
Pryde, D. J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hicks, G.
Randall, H. E


Bramall, E. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Rankin, J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Holman, P.
Reeves, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Rhodes, H.


Brown, George (Belper)
House, G.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hoy, J.
Robens, A.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hubbard, T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Robertson J. J. (Berwick)


Burden, T. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Burke, W. A
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Royle, C.


Callaghan, James
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Sargood, R.


Champion, A. J.
Irving, W. J.
Scollan, T


Chater, D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Scott-Elliot, W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jay, D. P. T.
Sharp, Granville


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Collins, V. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Colman, Miss G. M
Keenan, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Cook, T. F.
Key, C. W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Corlett, Dr. J.
King, E. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Corvedale, Viscount
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Skinnard, F. W.


Cove, W. G.
Kinley, J.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Crawley, A.
Kirby, B. V
Snow, Capt. J. W


Cunningham, P.
Lang, G.
Solley, L. J.


Daines, P.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Stross, Dr. B.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lever, N. H.
Stubbs, A. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Levy, B. W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Swingler, S.


Davies, R J. (Westhoughton)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Symonds, A. L.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Deer, G.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Dodds, N N.
Longden, F.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Donovan, T.
McAdam, W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McGhee, H. G.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Dye, S.
McGovern, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.




Edelman, M.
Mack, J. D.
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McKay, [...] (Wallsend)
Tiffany, S.


Edwards, N. (Gaerphilly)
McKinlay, A. S.
Timmons, J.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Titterington, M. F.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Tolley, L.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Farthing, W. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Walker, G. H.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Forman, J. C.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Warbey, W. N.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Watson, W. M.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mikardo, Ian
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Gallacher, W,
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)




Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Wyatt, W.


West, D. G.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Yates, V. F


Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Willis, E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Wills, Mrs. E. A



Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, A
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Woods, G. S
Mr. Simmons and




Mr. Popplewell




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir I.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Harris, H. Wilson
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Amory, D. Heathcote
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.


Barlow, Sir J.
Haughton, S, G.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Baxter, A. B.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'ne'ster)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Neven-Spence, Sir B


Beechman, N. A.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Nicholson, G.


Birch, Nige[...]
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Bowen, R.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Bower, N.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Howard, Hon. A.
Pickthorn, K.


Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Jennings, R.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Byers, Frank
Keeling, E. H.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Carson, E.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Renton, D.


Channon, H.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lambert, Hon. G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F. C
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Crowder, Capt. John E
Lipson, D L.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew. E.)
Snadden, W. M.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Digby, S. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col, M.


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Strauss, H. C. (English Universities)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Duthie, W. S.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Studholme, H. G.


Eccles, D. M.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walte[...]
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Teeling, William


Erroll, F. J.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
MacLeod, J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wadsworth, G.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Gammans, L. D.
Marples, A. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Glyn, Sir R.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grant, Lady
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)



Gridley, Sir A.
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gumston, R. V
Molson, A. H. E
Mr. Drewe and Major Conan[...]


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL SERVICE BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 7th May.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 14.—(Early registration and calling up.)

3.50 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I beg to move, in page 1O, line, 13, at the end, to add:
(2) This section shall come into force on the passing of this Act.
This is a proposal that the Subsection which we were discussing when we finished this morning, shall apply at the passing of this Act, to allow people to come in

at a younger age instead of waiting until the end of the year.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to express our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for accepting this Amendment. Of course, the Clause to which it refers will now be altered considerably, and I am very glad indeed that the intentions of the Clause will be carried out, as from the passing of the Act, as they were until quite recently.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Wing-Commander Millington (Chelmsford): The discussion on this Clause which we had somewhat earlier in the day revived doubts which exist in the


minds of some hon. Friends and myself on the whole question of the proper age at which a young soldier should enter the Service. We believe, with the Government, that the youngest age at which a soldier should start his military service is 18. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour did, in fact, confirm that view that 18 is the youngest age at which a soldier should start his military service. I believe, however, that there are other considerations so far as the young soldier is concerned, and, except in a military emergency, I would put that age somewhat higher than 18, because I believe that, as the school-leaving age and the extra education age rise, we get our young men conscripted into military service more and more nearly direct from school. I am convinced, after some eight years' service with the Army and the Royal Air Force, that the barrack room is not the moral atmosphere into which it is wholly desirable to pitchfork impressionable adolescent young men. In these respects, some of us disagree with the whole Bill. Some of us would like the age to be raised to 21. So we ask the Minister to look again at the whole of Clause 14, because we would strongly resist any attempt being made to reduce the age and so force these impressionable adolescents into an environment which might be deleterious to them morally, and into which it is wholly undesirable to introduce them at too early an age.
There are, however, other considerations which must be taken into account. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that the purpose in the mind of the Government was to make 18 the age of conscription, and, by agreement, it was considered a good thing that some latitude, to the extent of six months prior to the age of 18, would be granted by the Government. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary said he would give consideration, between now and the Report stage, to a new form of words, because there was some fear that the interpretation of the words of the Amendment might not be acceptable. I ask him to consider whether drafting men into the Services at 17½ might not, in fact, be starting a vicious circle, and that, in future, the public might think of 17½ as the age at which men might be called up, and we might be allowing them to

start military service at the age of 17. I ask the Minister of Labour to examine further the implications of this Clause because we feel that it is a dangerous principle, to make it permissive to anybody to start military service below the age of 18 years.

4.0 p.m

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The Committee would do well to study this Clause very carefully before allowing it to stand pare of the Bill. It proposes first of all to allow a boy of 17 years two months to register for military service and to allow a boy of 17 years and six months to engage in a very intensive and exacting course of military training, some of it overseas. To say that the Clause is permissive is no answer. The country and its Government are judged as much by what they permit as by what they enforce. The Bill enforces the conscription of young men at 18, and, tragically to my mind, this Clause permits the conscription of juveniles at 17 years six months.
Registration for military service is a conscious act of contract. As one who has no objection to military service, I should say that everybody who registers for such service should have as profound and full a knowledge of the implications as possible. It is difficult even for a grown man fully to realise the implications of military registration. Very few young men of 18 can fully realise those implications, but extremely few boys of 17 years two months can say that they know what they are contracting for at that age. There are many undertakings which the law of this country refuses to allow a man to contract for until he is 21. This is a most exacting and solemn contract which it is suggested that a boy of 17 years two months shall be allowed to undertake.
The Clause also permits a boy no older than 17 years 6 months to engage in military training and service, part of which may be spent overseas, under conditions and in circumstances referred to this morning by the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) and referred to in this House on numerous occasions. We have a responsibility that we do not by allowing the Clause to stand part of this Bill pave the way to placing some hundreds of thousands of adolescents in conditions and circumstances which they will find it hard to withstand from the physical and moral


points of view. It is a bad thing to compel boys to engage in military service at so young an age as 18, but it is perfectly outrageous to permit them to engage in military service, particularly in today's conditions, at 17 years six months. Even the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said that 19 was low enough in all conscience.
Having regard to the hazards these young people are likely to encounter through this Clause, one would expect the Ministers responsible to provide overwhelming reasons why the Clause and its provisions should stand. Up to now all we have had is a perfunctory sentence or two by the Minister in his speech on the Second Reading. He said:
The age for calling up is 18 years, 'but there is provision to allow young men who apply to be called up earlier, but not earlier than the age of 17 years and six months. The provision is made quite deliberately …
Here comes the reason for the concession:
… so that young men going up through a university or to some other training course may choose to be called up a little earlier, enabling them to come out of the Forces a little earlier in time than if they had waited until they were 18 to be called up; and in time to start their university or other scholastic careet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1947; Vol. 435. c. 1680–1.]
Considering the enormity of the proposal in the Clause, the Minister's argument does not seem to be very impressive, but I grant that when the proposed fulltime service period was 18 months, as it was when he made that statement, when there was a prospect of a prospective student emerging from his full-time training at i9 and not being able to undertake his scholastic training until he was getting on for 20, there was some sort of case for conceding a recession in the ground call-up age of six months; but the position today is quite different. The period of full-time service has been reduced by six months and consequently there is no need to fix the lowest possible age of call-up at 17 years six months in order to enable certain boys to be able to emerge from training and proceed to the university at 19. If we stick to the ground call-up age of 18, the fact that we are not asking for more than 12 months' whole-time service will automatically bring those boys out of their full-time service in time for the university or other course at 19. That will meet the situation educationally and socially.
I hope the Minister will agree that the reduction of the full-time period of service has made this Clause redundant to his needs. I hope he will look at it and not force some of us to proceed into the Lobby on this matter. If he will not agree to withdraw the Clause today, will he undertake to examine the point between now and a later stage? The provisions of this Clause are not now vital to the Bill and if he would withdraw it it would certainly bring cheer and encouragement to many hearts in the country which are sickened by the "permissive" infamies of this Clause.

Mr. Isaacs: I am surprised at some of the observations that have been made about these matters. It seems to have been overlooked that many of these points were discussed at great length in the early part of the day and the Parliamentary Secretary gave a pledge that he would look into them to see if there was any need for further safeguards before we came to the Report stage. There will not be hundreds and thousands of these young men concerned. There are not hundreds and thousands to be called up altogether. These will be a very small proportion of the total to be called up in the ordinary way, though however small the proportion is, it is right that their interests should be safeguarded. We are safeguarding their interests by giving these lads the choice of being called up if they want to be There is no compulsion; it is their choice. So that there shall be further guidance for them, we look to the possibility of their parents' views being known in the matter.
The hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) said that this Clause was redundant to our needs. We think the Clause is not redundant to the needs of some of these young men, who prefer to come up at the earlier age, get their training over and then have the chance to take their scholastic career earlier. I would remind the Committee that this is all to be done by regulation, and there is therefore no need for any further Amendment of the Bill itself. If the Clause is left out, we shall not have the power to make regulations, and we want to make the regulations. The regulations will come before the House. Everything possible is being done to safeguard the interests of these young men. This affects not only young fellows who are going to


universities, but also those who find that an employer is not willing to take them on because they are likely to be called up in two or three months' time. Recently an hon. Member asked if I would see that his son was called up quickly as the lad was so "fed up" with looking for a job. I warmly appreciate the spirit which animated my hon. Friend in speaking on behalf of these young people, but we have done all we can.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The Minister said that there would not be hundreds and thousands of young people placed in this hazardous position. It may well be hundreds and thousands, if the Bill becomes permanent, and the years go by and young men in annual quotas are subjected to it. If the age of call-up is progressively lowered, as' my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) suggested, there may well be hundreds and thousands. In view of the undertaking the Minister has given us about reconsidering certain aspects of this Clause and in view of the fact that I shall be able to raise this matter at a later stage, I do not propose to exhort my hon. Friends to press this matter now.

Mr. Pickthorn: We have had some experience to show that, if one says anything at all critical or even interrogative about any phrase that contains the word "education," one is open to the charge that -one is against education. I hope that if one is slightly dubious about some of the assumptions made in respect of the word "youth" one does not run the risk of being called an enemy of youth. I suppose. that in view of my professional circumstances, I should be as familiar as anybody is with a high proportion of boys, in the relevant circumstances, in the past and just now. I should like, if it is not fulsome, to say that I think the Government spokesmen on this Clause have been extremely reasonable, fair and frank with us. I hope that they will stick to the sort of considerations they have laid before the Committee today and again just now.
About the point of boys of 17 being in an unsuitable moral atmosphere in barrack rooms, two, considerations have been left out. One is that people dealing with boys would say that, in nine case out of ten, the atmosphere of the barrack room would not be the important thing and that it

would not matter whether the boy went into the moral atmosphere of a barrack room, a factory or a solicitor's office. It depends in nine cases out of ten on the parents of the boy. That is one of the meanings of the phrase in the Bible about the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children. So long as we can be assured, as I am sure we can, that in the case of 19 families out of 20, the early calling up of a boy means taking the decision after full consultation with his parents—and we are assured there will be every opportunity for that under the regulations—it really is not true that this is subjecting boys to any moral risk which they will otherwise avoid. Then we were told that there is a great factor of convenience about this in a considerable number of cases.
4.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) said that if he were given the concessions which he asks for, the result would be that a boy would undergo his military service, and then at 19 go to the university and so on. There has been a tendency in the past for boys to go to the university at 19, but it is tending to get back a year from what it used to be in previous generations, and I think, on the whole, that is a good tendency. The hon. Gentleman's arguments would be fairly strong if all boys were born about the end of August—the Government, which is so good at publicity campaigns and exhortations, might be able to arrange for things to happen in that way—but we are not assuming that this Bill will last 20 years, and it has not happened that way recently. Boys have in fact been born on dates scattered all through the year, and that being so, there is a serious inconvenience both to the boys and to the educational organisations concerned, if large numbers of them finish their military service at such a stage that they have to come back very late in their 20th year which used to be fairly normal some 40 years ago, but has now become abnormal. I think it would be a reactionary result which I am sure none of us wants in this connection.

Mrs. Leah Manning: I wish I could agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot. My experience has been with lads a little younger than those of whom he has had experience. Probably most of the young men with whom he deals


are from 18 to 21; mine have been up to the age of 17 and, furthermore, they have not been of quite the same type. The arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) are very valid, now that we only want our young people for a year, in relation with what I am about to say now. It has been our anxiety—and especially the anxiety of those who have had charge of the education of working-class boys and girls—not to push the clock back, and I think the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), will agree that the tendency to push the clock back to 17½ has only been the result of a wartime expedient. It is not a general tendency for young people to go to the university at 17½. It has been the war that has made that necessary, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to go back to the Middle Ages, when people went to the university at 12.
On the other hand, the general tendency in the State educational system has been to prolong childhood and adolescence and to build a bridge between the age when a boy or girl left school and the time when he or she went out into the world, whether to industry or to military conscription as is the case now. The new Education Act very deliberately sets out to do that. It gives boys and girls, when they leave full-time education, a chance to go to a county college from 16 to i8, and I say very deliberately that the possibility of taking up military service at 17½ will ruin the county colleges. It is no use for the Minister to tell us that they will have the right to go on with their county college work in the Army. It is a totally different thing. It means a break in the county college work, on which so many of us have built for their education during the time of their adolescence.
It has been suggested this afternoon that parents will be consulted about this. But there are parents and parents, and I very much fear that the boys from a family where parental influence is very poor, and very badly exercised—the very kind of boy to whom the hon. Gentleman was referring when he said that the sins of the fathers are very often visited on the children, and that we need not fear the moral atmosphere of the barrack room if a boy had been brought up in a good home with good parents—will be the ones who will fly into the Army without the parents being consulted at all. They

are the boys we want to keep in the county colleges so as to exert influence over them—the boys from the bad homes. But they are the ones who will be likely to go, rather than those over whom the parents will exercise an influence to keep them behind.
Now that the period is 12 months instead of 18 months, I am sure that the vast majority of boys going to the university, or into professions, will be influenced against going into the Army, but there are many other parents—and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour must recognise this—who will not exercise any such influence upon their young sons at all. Those, as I say, are the very ones we want to take care of, the very ones we want to keep in our county colleges. Employers of labour will not take them, so they will not have a job and they will not have much education, and will go into the Army unprepared to meet those dangers, difficulties and temptations to which we cannot close our eyes. Especially if they are going on to the Continent, who would be so foolish and unwise as to close his eyes to the dangers those boys will meet, all unprepared? It is to them, and not to those who are going to the university at the age of i8, that I ask the Minister to give his very careful consideration.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I hesitate to speak, as I was not here when this Clause was discussed earlier, but I rise to ask a question which may have been answered at an earlier stage. What is the definition of "for sufficient cause"? What the hon. Gentleman said about the change from 18 months to 12 months is connected with that. There has also been some discussion about Clause 10 and education, and what is perfectly clear is that there will not be quite so much opportunity, whatever people may say, during the period of 12 months, for the kind of training and education some of us hoped would be incorporated in the 18 months' period. I agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) that the university student must be allowed this opportunity, but if it is going to be universal it is a very serious thing. Imagine what is happening now. A boy has to stay on to the end of the year in which he reaches the age of 15. It is perfectly clear that in certain parts of East London—and North


Kensington—at the present moment there are boys between 17 and 18, who are out of work. Employers will not take them for one reason or another—perhaps because they do not want to employ a person who will only be available for a few months—but it is an appalling thing that there should be any unemployment between the ages of 17 and 18. Therefore, could the right hon. Gentleman define the words "for sufficient cause," and assure us that only in a limited number of cases, will university students or similar boys be allowed to enter at 17½? Has that point been discussed before?

Mr. Isaacs: It was discussed before. We are using the words "for sufficient cause" so that there may be some elasticity. It may be because they are going up to a university or because they are going for training or something of that kind, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this has been done honestly in the interests of the boys.

Miss Herbison: I wish to support my hon. Friends on this side who are pleading with the Minister to reconsider this Clause. We were told a moment or two ago by the Minister that the interests of the boys would be safeguarded, and that it was only if they desired, and their parents were willing, that they would be allowed to enter the Forces at 17½. But surely, if we consider only whether they are willing or not, we might as well say about children that we safeguard their interests by giving them the right to put their hand in the fire and have it burnt or not. There is one important point with which I wish to deal. Listening to the discussions so far, I have learnt that in England, the usual age for entrants to a university is at present i8. It is not so in Scotland. In Scotland a boy or girl goes to a university usually at about 17 years of age. Before I came to this House I taught boys right up to the age of 17 years, and I want to make a particular plea to the Minister. Those boys are certainly not fit to go into the Forces. They have led a very sheltered life indeed as pupils in a secondary school. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] An hon. Member opposite dissents from that, but I know it only too well. They are very different indeed from boys who have gone out to work at 14, and have had three years

among people or all kinds and of all sorts of opinions, and I think it would be a very gave danger indeed if we took these lads straight from school and sent them into the Forces. We ought to give them the chance of having at least one year, in the technical college or the university, which would have a broadening influence on their lives and be of great help to them when they go into the Forces.
I make a plea also for the boy who is not fortunate enough to go to a university or technical college. In April of this year, we raised the school-leaving age to 15, and I am glad that one hon. Member has mentioned the county colleges. If we take boys at 17½ we are taking them in the middle of the third year of their apprenticeship. I have spoken to ever so many tradesmen on this subject, and almost every one of them declared that in the first two years, a boy is merely finding his feet in the trade he is learning, and it is not until the third year that he is really doing something worth while. I feel that if a boy is given at least his three years as an apprentice, no matter what trade he is working at, he will come back after his year's training a much fitter person to continue his apprenticeship. I also feel that, if full use is to be made of the county colleges, we need at least three years for the boys. For those two reasons, to give the student the benefit of a broadening influence before he enters the Forces and to give the boy who is an apprentice time to begin to know his job, no boy should be allowed to enter the Forces until he is at least i8 years of age.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15.—(Enforcement of requirement to submit to medical examination.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Piratin: I would like the Minister to say whether it is the intention that any young man will be bound, when asked to do so, to report for medical examination and so on, and that he can be arrested without a warrant if he fails to do so. Is that the purpose of the Clause? It may be necessary during wartime that such steps should be taken, and


that the police should have such powers to act without warrants, but in peacetime I think a different kind of approach is required, and I should like to see some relaxation so that the normal civil procedure may apply. I should be grateful to have the Minister's opinion on that point.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: During the Second Reading Debate, I drew the attention of my right hon. Friend to a circumstance obtaining under the Military Service Act at present in force, which everybody regards as undesirable. It was that a man who claimed to be a conscientious objector and whose claim had not been admitted by the tribunal, nevertheless persisted in his objection. The man then refused to comply with the notice calling him to attend a medical examination. By the nature of that offence, it could be made, if not a continuing offence, one capable of infinite repetition. It could result in the man being prosecuted for each failure to comply with a series of notices to submit himself for medical examination.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): There is an Amendment to deal with this specific point on the next Clause.

Mr. S. Silverman: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken when he says that the Amendment to the next Clause has much to do with the point I am now submitting. It is true that I have on the Paper a proposed new Clause to deal with the point, and if the contention which I propose to advance when we reach that Clause is acceptable, Clause 15 ought not now to be ordered to stand part of the Bill. Everybody agrees that, in form, and technically, a series of sentences should follow a series of offences, but in this case it will be a series of penalties for what is, in essence, only one offence. The Minister of Labour did me the honour of suggesting that I might try to find some way of getting round the difficulty. The suggestion I am making is that in the case of a man who claims to be a conscientious objector, we should dispense altogether with the medical examination, if the man refuses to comply with it. The State will lose nothing thereby. I suggest that a man in that position should be called up as though the medical examination had taken place. Then,

upon his failure to comply with the call-up notice, the authorities will get him anyhow, just as they would if he failed to comply with any other provision of the Act or with any military order after he has been called up. I invite my right hon. Friend to say what his attitude is to the principle which I have outlined. If he were disposed to look favourably on it, the case for Clause 15 would disappear, and we might dispense with it altogether now.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The provisions in the Clause may be necessary in present circumstances, but I think the Committee are entitled to be told why, at this time of day, the Government require these additional powers. I understand that the Clause permits arrest without warrant in cases where no previous provision of the law has given that power. Indeed, if that is not so, there is no point at all in the Clause. I was under the impression that wartime Government had armed themselves pretty adequately with emergency powers of all sorts, and it seems to me a little curious that nowadays, when we are more or less at peace, the Government should require further power of arrest without warrant. There may be a satisfactory explanation, but we are entitled to be told why these additional powers are required.

Mr. Isaacs: I appreciate the brevity with which these points have been put, as well as their importance. The general principle with which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is concerned, is what is usually called the "cat and mouse" procedure.

Mr. Ayles: It is a question of the beginning of the police State.

Mr. Isaacs: I am proposing to give an explanation, but perhaps when I have given it, the hon. Member will not understand.

Mr. Ayles: There is no necessity for the Minister to be insulting.

Mr. Isaacs: I have known my hon. Friend for such a long time that I will overlook what he says, and take his remark, having in mind from whence it came.

Mr. Ayles: On a point of Order. The Minister of Labour made the suggestion that after he had explained a point, perhaps hon. Members would not have understood it. Is that not a rather insulting remark?

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Has it not been a frequent occurrence in the last few years that Ministers have explained things and that the whole House did not understand them?

Earl Winterton: It is not the first time that hon. Members opposite have shown that they are ill-conversant with the Rules of the House of Commons. In terms of great indignation the Minister said, "If I did explain, the hon. Member would not understand." I suggest that hon. Members opposite might learn the Rules of the House.

Mr. Isaacs: We have heard of storms in teacups. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles) did not understand what I said, but I am sure that we shall now understand each other.
I want to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. We are very anxious not to get conscientious objectors into the position of being brought up, dealt with, put in prison, taken out of prison, dealt with, brought up again, and so on. We want to get away from all that. That is the point which will be raised when we reach the proposed new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. The proposal in Clause 15 applies to the man who is called up and claims to be a conscientious objector, and who is ordered to submit himself for medical examination. The man can be taken by a constable to the place of medical examination. Having got there, the man refuses to submit to the medical examination and just walks out under the policeman's nose. Then he has to go through the same process again, at the end of which he walks Away, and the policeman cannot apprehend him. Then he has to go to court, we have to get another warrant, bring the man up again and take him to the medical board. He walks away again.
In those circumstances we ask that if the man disobeys the order of the court to submit himself to medical examination he can be apprehended at once by the constable and brought to the court again.

We can then proceed under the other Clause. We are anxious to give the conscientious objector a square deal and we do not intend that there shall be constant persecution. Our records show that very little of that kind of thing has happened. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Southall will recognise that fact—and there is no sarcasm about that. The association representing conscientious objectors have expressed their appreciation of the way in which these matters have been dealt with.

Mr. Charles Williams: I would like to thank the Minister very much for what he has just said. Like other hon. Members I have a natural dislike of the idea of arrest without warrant. We put an Amendment on the Paper on the point, but it did not get very far, and we have not had any help from the Communist Party or from other hon. Members opposite, whether crypto-Communist or otherwise. For a long while there has been an abuse in connection with this matter. We have been arresting these people, and then they have been able to walk away. I gather that that is being stopped now. It was a real abuse. The country has tried to be generous to conscientious objectors, whether agreeing or disagreeing with their point of view. With all our dislike of arrest without warrant it seems to me that the Government's proposal is a definite improvement on the existing position. I would like the Leader of the House to take note of our attitude on this matter, and to remember that we try to help the Government in every way we can.

Mr. Piratin: I want to be perfectly clear about what the Minister has told us. Do I understand that all the various procedures mentioned in the Clause are separate, or are they all part of one procedure? We find in the Clause that the man has to submit himself for medical examination. Later it refers to "further medical examination." Again it says "or examination by a consultant examiner." Further it says "and to be detained in custody." According to what the Minister just said, it is only where all those procedures have been gone through, that the constable then has the right to arrest without warrant?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, that is quite definite. It is only where a man has been ordered


to go for medical examination or for consultation. Upon refusal to obey the court's order, the constable would have the right to arrest him.

Mr. S. Silverman: I recognise that there is no real conflict between us. We want to know what is the best machinery to carry out what we all want. The procedure under Clause 15 is very cumbrous. If the Government insist upon medical examination, they will need Clause 15, cumbrous or not. If the Minister will accept the principle which I have endeavoured to put to him, and have embodied in the proposed new Clause, it is difficult to see why the machinery of the Measure should include this cumbrous procedure at all. A man who is willing to be medically examined will attend for examination upon receipt of an ordinary notice. I suggest that in the case of a man who is not willing to be medically examined, the Government proceed as though examination had taken place. I cannot see why the Government should bother themselves in those cases with this cumbrous machinery.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Having listened to the Minister's explanation and to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) I find myself very much impressed by what the hon. Member has said. I do not understand why, when a man has said that he will not serve and will not submit himself to medical examination, that examination should be forced upon, him. There will be a point where he will be taken to the court if he persists in his refusal to serve. The Minister does not make clear to my comprehension his reason why the suggestion that he should omit the medical examination in such cases should not be followed.

Major Tufton Beamish: I cannot understand why a conscientious objector in such circumstances is taken by a constable for his medical examination if he is not already detained in custody, and is not already under arrest. If a constable is standing in a room, is the man not escaping from custody when he walks out?

Mr. Isaacs: When the other Act was passed, the authorities thought they had the power which we now propose, but it was proved that they had not.

Mr. Frank Byers: Would the Minister pay some attention to the point which has just been made by my hon. Friend the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris)? It seems that the question of medical examination of the conscientious objector is being discussed at a wrong stage of these proceedings. If a man says he has a conscientious objection to military service, is not the first thing to do to find out whether that objection is valid or not? If it is, medical examination is irrelevant. If it is not a valid objection, the tribunal will find out, and the man must then submit to medical examination and be called up. There seems to be a first-class opportunity for the Minister to improve the whole system and attitude towards the conscientious objector.

Mr. Scollan: We seem to be involving the conscientious objector in two disputes with the law instead of one. The first dispute is on the question of medical examination. He has to go through the whole rigmarole of examination. Then he has to go through the whole thing again in regard to registration of his conscientious objection. To make it practical, the first thing would be to establish that a man is a conscientious objector.

4.45 P.m.

Mr. Isaacs: I think the Committee are overlooking the fact that the man might not be a conscientious objector at all. He might simply say, "I will not go to be medically examined." A man has to be medically examined in order to ascertain his fitness for service. If he is found unfit for service, he is not wanted. If he is found fit, it is then for him to say, "I am a conscientious objector." Without this provision there would be a loophole of which the genuine conscientious objector does not take advantage.

Mr. Wilson Harris: What the man says is, "I will not serve." He does not say, "I will not be examined."

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 16.—(Other Amendments.)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, in page 10, line 24, at the end, to insert:
(2) The said Acts shall have effect as if at the end of Subsection (7) of Section six of the principal Act the following words were inserted, that is to say 'and such regulations shall provide for the grant to any person who on the


date at which he becomes liable to be called up under the National Service Act, 1947. is serving an apprenticeship or receiving full-time education in a universty, school or other institution, or who satisfies the Minister that he will within one year from that date be so receiving education, of a postponement certificate for the period of such apprenticeship or education.'
The effect and intention of this Amendment are such that I have no doubt they will have the sympathy of the Minister. Indeed, the object of this Amendment is to put into the Bill substantially what the Minister has said are the intentions of the Government. Briefly, the effect of this Amendment is to provide that a right to postponement shall be granted to students and apprentices for the period of their studentship or apprenticeship. That, with one additional factor, to which I shall invite the attention of the Committee in a moment, is the intention of this Amendment. I do not think I shall be challenged if I say that I believe that is, administratively, the intention of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman the Minister is able, after his strenuous efforts of the last 48 hours, to cast his mind back to the day before yesterday, which, I have no doubt, seems a very long time ago to him, he will recollect that he said, with reference to the intention of the Government:
It is apparent that the hon. Member for Southall has not realised that deferment is not restricted to indentured apprentices, but also covers non-indentured apprentices, and, what is more important, those who are called 'learners,' who have not the privilege of being apprentices, but are being taught a trade. All who are going through a course of instruction for a trade, or who are going to the universities; shall have the right to ask for deferment.
The right hon. Gentleman also said:
I was making clear what was already indicated on Second Reading, that any apprentice, learner, or student going up to the university, may himself make application for his service to be postponed until after his training has been completed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 237–8.]
That indication of opinion is, I think—so far as any indication of opinion can be—satisfactory to most hon. Members of the Committee. The only variation which this Amendment makes to that intention is to add the provision, which hon. Members will see upon the Order Paper, to the effect that there are also included within this right to postponement, those who can satisfy the authorities that they will,
within one year from that date, be so receiving education.

The intention of that additional factor will, of course, be apparent to the Committee. Schools, universities, technical colleges, and so on, generally begin their academic year on one date only in the year. It may be that a young man becomes i8 in April, and desires to proceed to a technical college in October. He cannot proceed to a technical college till then, because they will not have him. This further provision is designed to cover that point.
I hope that after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, he will indicate a willingness to accept this Amendment, and will not merely ask the Committee to accept his good intentions in the matter, perfectly genuine, as I am sure most hon. Members will agree, as those intentions are. There are several reasons I suggest to the Committee, why it is much better to have this provision in the Bill. First, there s the psychological one. There is no doubt at all, that to the ordinary citizen of this country, there is a great and inevitable difference between the most reliable Ministerial assurance, and an enactment by the Legislature. People know that the latter is their statutory right, ensured to them by the law of this land, whereas Ministerial assurances have obviously—and I am casting no reflections—less validity and less binding force.
I think that the young men affected by the provisions of this Bill would be somewhat reassured if they knew that their rights under it are actually written into the Bill itself. That is important in enacting what, with the exception' of the Act of 1939, is the first provision for compulsory military service in peacetime in this country. It is equally important that in the Bill there should be full recognition of the need for safeguarding both education and apprenticeship. Then, again, there is the fact that this is obviously a matter of major policy. I imagine that the Committee will agree that it is inevitable, in these days, that minor matters can and must inevitably be dealt with administratively, or even by regulation. But this is not a minor matter; this is a matter of major importance, inasmuch as it affects, not only the whole life of a large section of the younger part of the community, but also fundamentally affects the possibility of this Bill working smoothly, and with the minimum of damage to the community.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) who, some hours ago, pointed out that it was important at this moment that the wartime emphasis upon priority for the needs of the State, as against the needs of the individual, should be reversed, and that it should be made clear that, although a compulsory military service was accepted as a regrettable necessity by the majority of the Committee, the wellbeing of the individuals affected by it must come first. If the Committee accept that point of view, I think they must insist that what is, perhaps, the most important provision for the care of the individual concerned shall be written into the Bill. There will be this additional advantage. I will say, quite frankly, that, as far as I am concerned, I am far from happy about this Bill. [Laughter.] I am sorry that some hon. Members laugh. I ask them to accept the view that it is not unreasonable to be reluctant to vote away for a year the liberty of a large section of the population. The fact that I shall give my vote, when necessary, to that effect does not deprive me of anxiety and reluctance on this matter. I believe that attitude will be found to exist among a great many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I am very sorry that any hon. Member should regard that aspect of the matter as one for merriment. It will reassure a great many people, both in this Committee and outside, if they know that the inevitable damage to the education and training of the young, which this Bill involves, is being minimised as far as possible, and minimised by provisions within the Bill itself. It is for that reason that I am moving this Amendment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I address myself to the Amendment. It seems to me that there is a great element of misunderstanding in this matter. Briefly, the position is, as I explained yesterday, that there are two methods by which a person's liability to serve is deferred. There is the deferment method, and the postponement method. What the hon. Gentleman is asking for in this Amendment is that the present method of deferring students shall be transferred from the present machinery to the hardship committees. In other words, he is asking for a major Amendment of

the provisions of the National Service Act, 1939. But that part of the Act is being retained here. If the Amendment were carried, it would give to every student in the country, whether there was a place for him in the university or not, the absolute right to exemption until he had gone to the university.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary does not want to mislead the Committee. Surely, the provision on that point is clear. It provides for exemption during the period of university education, or if the applicant can satisfy the Minister that he will be going through a course within one year. To satisfy the Minister of that, he would obviously have to show proof that the university would take him.

Mr. Ness Edwards: But then we should have the position of a man, who is now liable for 12 months service, having that service postponed, because, in 10 months' time, he can get into a university. He might, indeed, spend such time in the university, under the right given to him by this Amendment, as would take him beyond the age of call-up. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is wrong."] I was satisfied about the confusion which existed concerning the method of granting postponement certificates and allowing deferment under the deferment procedure. It is really all mixed up, and is done in such a way as to make nonsense of the present legislation, and the whole procedure. I will try again to set out the position. The postponement provision in the National Service Act was inserted for a special purpose. The postponement certificate is only granted in cases of personal hardship. The hon. Gentleman is now asking that people should be given a postponement certificate, but such certificates can only be issued by a hardship committee.

Mr. S. Silverman: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but I want to get the point clear. We had a Debate on Tuesday last about 18 or 21, and I put to the Committee the very point which my hon. Friend is now putting. At that time, my hon. Friend said that this Bill was to make a change in the law, and that, whereas, under the existing law, the applicant had to prove hardship, under the procedure of this law he would have to do no such thing, and would have an


option, provided he proved that he came within those circumstances.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sorry to have to press this point, but I am afraid I have not made myself clear. A postponement certificate is granted on the grounds of personal hardship. It is provided that such a certificate shall be issued by a hardship committee. I submit that a hardship committee is the wrong machine for granting deferment. We are now discussing deferment for apprentices and for persons receiving full-time education in a university, or who satisfiy the Minister that within a year they will go to an educational institution. The only body to grant a postponement certificate in this type of case is the hardship committee. The only postponement certificate that can be issued is one issued by the hardship committee. I appreciate the intention of this Amendment; I can see what is behind it, but this is the wrong way of doing it.
I think this is a matter of some importance. Let me indicate what is done in the case of apprentices, learners, pupils and students in full-time attendance at certain technical clases or courses. I propose to quote the headnote of the form N. L. 11 which is issued to every student or every person in this category when he registers at the employment exchange. In the form are set out the conditions which are applicable if he desires to obtain deferment of his service. Let me quote the part relating to apprentices:
Deferment may be granted by the District Man Power Board if your employment as an apprentice, learner or pupil satisfies all the following conditions:
It then sets out the conditions. The first material condition is:
That a period of training after the age of 18 is required in your case in order that you may obtain the necessary skill for the occupation, or a recognised qualification for the profession, you intend to follow.
The second condition is:
That training begun (a) within the normal limits recognised in a scheme of apprenticeship or similar training for the industry, profession or occupation concerned.
Otherwise, as soon as a person received notice to register, it would be open for him to enter into apprenticeship in order to get the benefit of this deferment. The form then says that this training and

apprenticeship shall have commenced before the age of 17. There are other conditions laid down, presumably recognised and understood by the student and apprentice who wants to exercise his option to claim deferment for the purpose of his apprenticeship.
Now I come to the conditions of deferment of students attending a full-time technical class. I am taking a little more time over this point than, perhaps, I might otherwise have done, because there are several Amendments later on the Order Paper which cover substantially this ground, and I think the time spent now on this matter will be very usefully spent. The form says:
Conditions of deferment of a student attending a full-time technical class. If you are a student in full-time attendance at an approved technical class or course (other than a course of the kind referred to in paragraph 8 below), deferment may be granted by the District Man Power Board provided (1) (a) you begin your technical education before the age of 17 or within three months of the end of your whole-time general education; and (b) the course forms a normal part of, or is appropriate to, your training for the skilled occupation or profession you intend to follow; and (c)"—
this is relevant to some of the discussion we have had previously in the Committee—
the Head of the technical college which you attend, or propose to attend, certifies that you have been accepted as a suitable student for the course in question; (2) you are making satisfactory progress in your studies.
That is of the greatest importance. Otherwise, fellows who are not pulling their weight at the technical college, who are using this as a means of escape, will continue to fail examination after examination, until they have reached the age of 26, and will escape liability completely. In the case of deferment, one does not add to the period of liability the period of deferment. It is only in the case of postponement that the period is added, so that the postponement does not affect the liability of the person to his obligations under the Bill.

Mr. Boyd Carpenter: The example which the Parliamentary Secretary put of a person deliberately failing an examination implies criminal negligence on the part of the educational establishment. Any such student would obviously be dismissed from the place of education, and would then forfeit the deferment. I think the hon. Gentleman has made a false point.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have, so far, covered the case of the technical colleges. Now let me come to the case of the students. These are the conditions with regard to the students:
If you wish to apply for deferment on the ground that you are taking or propose to take, a full-time course at:—(1) a University, or (2) a Medical, Dental or Veterinary College for a recognised professional qualification, or (3) a recognised Agricultural College, leading to an approved qualification"—
in which some hon. Members were interested yesterday—
or … (5) a Teachers' Training College, you should consult the Head of your school or college regarding the special arangements for the deferment of such students. Pending a decision on your deferment for such a course, you may be eligible for temporary deferment under the separate arrangments referred to in paragraph 9 below.

Mr. K. Lindsay: Could we have the date of that document?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is the document which is now issued regularly on registration to any person who desires a deferment on any of the grounds I have mentioned. The date of the document as revised is February, 1947. This is the document which is in operation now.
I now come to the point raised in the Amendment. The Amendment confuses the two positions. It seeks to use the postponement certificate which is issued by the hardship committees for cases of deferment. I warn hon. Members that what they would be doing by their Amendment would be this: If a postponement certificate—and this is a term adequately described in the old Act—were granted to persons who were entitled to deferment, they would lose the benefit which they now have, namely, that their period of liability for service is not extended by the period of their deferment. This is a very difficult matter—

Brigadier Low: The hon. Gentleman has been very helpful, at any rate, as far as I am concerned, but I would like to see if I have correctly understood the effect. Does he want the effect to he that anybody who goes to a university for three years shall, instead of doing seven years' service under this Bill, do only four years? Does the hon. Gentleman want to produce that effect?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is what we have decided.

Brigadier Low: When did we decide it?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Hon. Members should look more closely into what was done during the night. I know we were not all at our best, but hon. Members should see what was decided by the Committee. I am sorry I have not made myself as clear as I would like to have done, but this is a highly technical matter, as the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) knows, because he is experienced in this matter. The position will be this: Instead of getting a deferment, they will get a postponement certificate. Then their liability to service will be extended by the period of deferment which is now called the period of postponement. I am sure that is not the intention of the Amendment. If that is the intention of the Amendment, it was not the reason given when the Amendment was moved. The reason which was given when the Amendment was moved was that every student and apprentice in the country expecting to go to a university immediately or within 10 or II months, should have the absolute right to be exempted from service, so long as he continued at the university, the technical college or as an apprentice. I submit that this would create a situation which would be capable of very great abuse. A man might fail in one college; he might fail in Cardiff, and he could then go to London. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He would not do so now, at this stage, because of the tremendous pressure to enter the universities, but would hon. Members consider what the position in the educational institutions of this country will be in three years' time when all these men have come out of the universities? It will become a great racket, and that is not the intention of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment.
I am satisfied hon. Members opposite want to do the right thing by the students and apprentices. I do not want their position to be worsened; and at same time, a method ought not to be created which would give rise to substantial abuse. Let me take the position of a student in a technical college. He gets a postponement certificate. He not a bright student, but he is doing his best. Hon. Members would describe him as a hard-working student. We cannot take away his postponement certificate because he is not brilliant, so long as he


is conscientious. But this is the postponement method and not the deferment method, and he will go on slogging away. He fails to pass his examinations until he reaches the age of 26, and, as the Bill now stands, he escapes his liability to service. That is all right in the case of the genuinely dull man, but, after all, there is an inducement for a man to be dull, because by being dull he will escape his obligations.

Mr. McGhee: He might become a general.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I do not wish to be offensive, but he might even become a Member of Parliament. This Amendment raises issues which will involve greater considerations than were in the mind of the mover. We shall have to discuss the matter later, when we come to the new Clauses, but I have tried to give the general framework, indicating how service is postponed and how it is deferred. They are two entirely different types of machinery and involve two entirely different types of reasons. This Amendment confuses the case of the man who ought to be deferred with the type of postponement which the hardship committee gives to a fellow who has some domestic hardship. Therefore, I ask that the Amendment be withdrawn. Perhaps we shall have further discussion on the matter when we come to the later Amendments dealing with agricultural workers, technical students and so on.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think the Parliamentary Secretary, who has done his best to explain the difficult position which arises with the present complicated machinery, has really failed, though I am not blaming him for it, to appreciate the true purport and significance of this Amendment. I feel sure that if he had appreciated it, he would not have said some of the hard things that he did say about it. He said, for' instance, that if this Amendment were accepted, it would lead to a great racket. I agree, it would, if the Amendment provided for a right to deferment which could be exercised, and go on being exercised, until the 26th birthday came, when the youth would be free from all liability for compulsory service. But that is the reason—although it may involve certain administrative

procedure, to which I will come later—why the reference in this Amendment is not to "deferment" but to "postponement." If the postponement is granted, the liability for service does not disappear. If it were postponement, there would be no incentive to the student or apprentice to engage in "ca'canny" in the hope of obtaining a deferment sufficiently long to free him from liability for service. That is the reason why the word "postponement" is found in this Amendment. It is an important point, because there is no intention on this side of the Committee of enabling students and apprentices to escape liability for national service under the terms of this Amendment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It seems to me that the hon. and learned Member is not quite clear. It is probably my fault that I have not made the position as clear as I might have done. I thought I had indicated that the granting of a postponement certificate is decided by the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. It also provides who shall issue it. The postponement certificate has a special technical significance. It must be issued by a committee which is quite incapable of dealing with things of this sort, but which deals with matters of other sorts. It also lays down for what the certificate shall be issued, and it does not cover any of the points in the Amendment. The Amendment does not propose to amend the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. All the Amendment proposes to do is, to amend the Bill before the Committee, which leaves the 1939 Act intact upon this point.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Parliamentary Secretary has again made clear what he had already made clear. I was going on to deal with the point which he has raised. I was dealing, first of all, with the arguments he had adduced on this particular Amendment because several times he referred to the Amendment creating the possibility of a great racket. I am trying to satisfy him that the word "postponement" was deliberately put into this Amendment for the very purpose of ensuring that there should be nothing in the nature of a great racket. I was going on to deal with the points he raised as to the difference between a postponement and a deferment. I appreciate the difficulty about that. It may


be that if this Amendment were accepted, there would be necessity for some consequential Amendment to the Third Schedule of the Bill. But let us deal first of all with the point of principle.
The fundamental point of principle, surely, is this. If a young man engaged in an apprenticeship, or a student, or an undergraduate at a university, in the interests of his career and with the advice of his parents, deems it to be to his advantage—and, indeed to the national advantage—to complete his course of education, then surely, so long as he does not avoid liability for national service some time, there is a great deal to be said for his being allowed to postpone—I use that word in its non-technical sense—his military service. I appreciate the difficulty. But, surely, if the principle is accepted, the difficulty then becomes a matter of machinery? One of the difficulties about this machinery is that it tries to divide all these cases into two distinct compartments. Where there are cases which are partly of a compassionate nature and partly of an educational nature in respect of which deferment is obtained—and it is not so easy to get a correct assessment of both—

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. and learned Member cannot escape with one, because an aggrieved person can claim the benefit of either machinery.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I quite agree; he can claim the benefit of either. I am not trying to escape from anything, but I am saying, from my experience of working this, that sometimes when a man has not a very strong case before one tribunal, or a very strong case before the other, the sum total of his two cases is a very strong case. I shall not pursue that, or I should probably get out of Order. The postponement certificate, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, is designed to deal with cases of personal hardship. The machinery may want altering. It may, indeed, be a grave personal hardship to a young man to have his career interrupted at the age of 18 when no interruption might ensue if his service could be postponed for one further year. I ask the Committee, in considering this Amendment, not to become too involved in the technical terms "postponement" and "deferment," but to apply their minds to the principle behind the Amendment; that is to say, the principle of allowing the

young person the exercise of an option in his own interests, on condition that the exercise of that option will merely postpone and not avoid his liability to national service.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in referring to that particular form, and reading out the conditions, said quite clearly, not that deferment should be granted when those conditions were satisfied, but that it "may" be granted. That, I have no doubt, was entirely right. But I suggest that in peacetime the option should rest more with the individual than with the tribunal to determine whether, in a particular case, liability for national service should be postponed or deferred. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary—I hope I am not taking too long over this—to apply his mind to the principle behind the Amendment, and also to deal with this further point. Some time ago, as it now appears to me, I put him some questions with regard to those engaged in agriculture who are not strictly apprentices, and who can only be described loosely as "students." While listening to him reading that form, I must say I was at a loss to see into what category those people come who are learning agriculture—which is a skilled occupation— and how they could bring themselves within the four corners of that form for the purpose of securing postponement of liability for service. I do not ask for a reply now, but I do ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into that matter. I accept all he said the other day about agriculture, and I need not remind him of it. But I do not think that form is wide enough to cover the cases which both he and I had in mind.

Mrs. Manning: I am sure there will be a great deal of sympathy on both sides of the Committee with the principle behind this Amendment. I will not go so far as the hon. and learned Member for Daventry. (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in suggesting that it should be left to the young person himself. Anybody who had experience of these matters during the period of the war will agree that the Parliamentary Secretary is not exaggerating when he says this could become a racket. During the early part of the war especially there were quite a number of cases and—although I would far rather not have to say this—it was much more usual among girls than boys during the


war. When national service first came into operation, a number of parents were horrified at the idea of their daughters entering national service, and in peacetime that might apply to boys as well. As far as my own work was concerned, there was always considerable pressure being exerted in regard to moving girls from one college to another, or re-examination of the reason why she was not going to be allowed to continue for another year or another term.
I think, however, that the Parliamentary Secretary has perhaps carried it to an illogical absurdity when he says a person could go on till 26 years of age, and then escape the whole thing. It might so happen if it were left to the young person himself to decide, which is what I understand is being asked for. That would, indeed, be very dangerous, and that is something we could not accept. There was a lot of trouble in this regard at the beginning of the war, and at the beginning of national service, until it was established. Believe me, the Parliamentary Secretary really knows what he is talking about in this matter.

Mr. Wilson Harris: I think we have great sympathy with the purpose of this Amendment. The real question in my mind is whether what the Amendment seeks to achieve is not already provided by the provisions of the Bill. In order that I may be quite clear about that, and perhaps to clarify the minds of other hon. Members, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether my understanding is right. A boy is called up at i8 years of age. If he does not intend to enter apprenticeship or a university until after he is 19, then obviously he must do his 12 months' service first. If, on the other hand, he wants to enter the university before he is 19, he can ask for a deferment and proceed with his three years' or, at the most, four years' course. That would take him to the age of 22 or 23. We are then faced with the possibility, I think the fantastic possibility, suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary, that he may manage to spin out his education for three more years so as to escape military service altogether. I cannot believe that is a suggestion to be taken very seriously. It is true that a boy might be willing to and might desire to do that. But is there any reputable educational institution in England or Wales today which would lend itself to that kind of thing?

Mrs. Manning: At one time did not young men stay at Cambridge for many years after they had finished their course? Although there is difficulty in regard to accommodation at universities at the present time, might not they go back, and stay there a good many years?

Mr. Harris: The hon. Lady has raised the very point on which I intended to touch. I see no prospect of that kind of position in the universities for years to come. We are being asked by Parliament to double the number of university students in this country. It is quite impossible to approach that, and it will be impossible for years and years. I cannot conceive that any university or college would keep within its walls anyone who was not paying proper attention to his education and who had not passed the examinations he ought to have passed at the end of three or four years. But I do not attach any importance to that. It seems to me that the intentions behind this Amendment are fully covered by the present arrangements for deferment.

Brigadier Low: I should like to expand the question which I put earlier, when the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking, and I apologise if I then seemed slightly discourteous to him. It does appear from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that the operation of deferment provisions, as opposed to the postponement provisions of his registration machinery, results in certain exemptions from part-time service under this Bill.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not desirous of being discourteous, but I am very anxious that I should understand the point that is being made. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put it again.

5.30 p.m.

Brigadier Low: I will try again. It appears to me, from what the hon. Gentleman has said, that the way in which his Ministry operates the deferment provisions results in a form of exemption from part-time service. I will give an example. If a man at the age of 18 is given a four year deferment, to allow him to complete a four year course at a university, as my hon. Friend the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) has suggested, he will finish the course at the age of 22; and, if what the hon. Gentleman says is right, he will then have only four years in which he is liable for service


under this Bill: whereas this Bill provides for a period of seven years' service. That is, I think, right. There is an example of exemption from part-time service which is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Bill. I always understood that it was a principle upon which the whole Committee was agreed, that there should be no exemptions from service under this Bill, except those set out in Section II of the principal Act, and underground miners, as announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. If the hon. Gentleman is right, and if he proposes to administer the provisions in this way, the Committee should discuss the desirability of this form of exemption from part-time service. I have always believed that, if there are to be exemptions from part-time service, the man in a reserved occupation at the time his exemption applies has a far better case. But I have been persuaded that it is better to have no exemption at all. I put the point to the hon. Gentleman, and I should like to have an answer.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I must confess I have a good deal of sympathy with this Amendment. I cannot, having had some experience in matters of deferment and postponement during the war, anticipate the serious consequences that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has imagined. I do not know where the racket was that was referred to by the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), unless—and here is the reason I speak tonight—unless the racket arose because of the impersonal organisation, which determined this, that, and the other, under deferment during the war.

Mrs. Manning: It is not where we have impersonal organisation that we get the racket. It arises in personal matters, such as those suggested in the Amendment, where the young persons themselves take steps for their deferment.

Mr. Davies: I am afraid that the excellent efforts made by the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up the confusion on this matter have only added to it, but if hon. Members persist in misunderstanding most of what the Parliamentary Secretary said, I certainly cannot place all the responsibility upon him. Not at all. Let us take the question of deferment, on the one hand, and that of postponement, on the other, as we saw them operate under

the National Service Acts. First, deferments were granted by manpower boards situated in different parts of the country. That is the reason why I used the word "impersonal." The applicants, in 99 cases out of every 100, had no opportunity of being present in person before the manpower boards. The whole business was done by correspondence. The pupil could not go there with the headmaster, or another master from his own school; the apprentice could not be accompanied by a representative of the firm to which he was apprenticed.
In the case of the hardship tribunals, the applicant could appear in person, and take a friend along with him. That friend could be his headmaster, or one of the masters in the school, or a representative of the firm. The case for the apprentice or pupil could be placed before a tribunal whose members knew the locality in detail, and knew a considerable number of people there. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that only cases of personal hardship could be brought before the hardship tribunal. I disagree with that. The applicant for postponement who appeared before a hardship tribunal, could put his own personal case of hardship, and that case could be reinforced by his employer, who would argue that, if that particular applicant were taken away from him, the employer himself would experience considerable hardship. I think I should try to show how this worked from the experience I had during the first war, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to remember a good deal of what he and I went through in the first war.
The manpower board is not an appropriate board to consider individual cases such as are referred to in the Amendment. What I suggest to my right hon. Friend is, that he should broaden the powers of the hardship tribunals, because there, all the personal facts relating to an individual can be brought out. I am trying to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister to this point, and I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary should act as a barrage between the right hon. Gentleman and me. I think the Minister is fully competent to answer anything I say. I notice that this Amendment simply asks for postponement. I am amazed that an Amendment of this kind should come from the Opposition benches. According


to this, the student or the apprentice would have to satisfy the Minister. How can the Minister be satisfied by placing the student at the mercy of an entirely impersonal machine? I know what has happened in my own country. Appeals have been made for deferment to the manpower board by an individual living 25 or 5o or even 70 miles from the manpower board, without any personal contact at all between the applicant for deferment and the manpower board. I am confident that the manpower board is not the right organisation.
I will go further. As far as South Wales is concerned, I would rather take any case I felt I could honestly support before the hardship tribunal or the court of referees, where I could get the personal touch and where I would be dealing with individuals who would know the local circumstances, and where the applicant would be there in person, and not placed at the mercy of a machine dealing only with correspondence.

Mr. Braddock: I want to touch on a rather different aspect of this Amendment. There is a danger that by the Amendment we should limit the scope of the application of the Clause. An important statement was made by the Minister on Clause in dealing with Amendments concerning the ages of 18 and 2I. The Minister made it clear that others, besides apprentices and students, are to receive consideration, that is to say, learners. It seems to me that there is a danger, if this Amendment is accepted, of the deferment being limited to apprentices and people who are going to universities or colleges. I think that that would be an exceedingly dangerous state of affairs to bring about. Other sections of the community ought to have this consideration.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The effect of this Amendment is the exact opposite. This Amendment proposes to grant to these people, not deferment, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, postponement. Therefore, it will not affect the position of other people who might or might not qualify for deferment.

Mr. Braddock: That may be so, but we shall limit the application of the Clause,

by specifying two classes. It is likely to have a bad effect on sections of the community not specifically mentioned in the Clause. Although I am sympathetic with the Amendment, I think there is danger in a limitation of this sort, and I ask the Minister, if he thinks there is anything in this Amendment at all, to reconsider the matter, and bring forward words that will make the Clause apply to all sections of the community, and not merely to these two specified classes.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I would ask the Committee to come to a decision on this matter. We have gone into it in great detail. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Some hon. Members were not here when these points were fully discussed and criticised on both sides of the Committee. We are now beginning to tread on our own tails, and to go over ground already covered. I should like to deal with one or two points which have been put forward, and to show why the Amendment should be withdrawn. In the first place, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said deferment may be granted. I agree that the word "may" is there. It is because conditions have to be fulfilled, and because no non-Service student can be allowed to go into a university to crowd out an ex-Service student. That is why the word is "may." There must be available adequate accommodation when the deferment certificate is granted. I will consider the point raised about the young men in agriculture.
The hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mts. Manning) said there could be a racket in this business. I do not want to criticise the young womenfolk of this country. How many of these young women. when we started calling them up, entered the universities, or undertook apprenticeships, or studentships of any sort, to avoid the call-up? It is said that medical students did the same thing. I am not making any charge against the profession on that ground. In those cases to which reference has been made the procedure is that the young man who wants to go to the university makes his application for deferment on the form which I have described. The matter goes to a competent authority to decide the question of whether or not he will make a good student, whether or not his deferment in order that he may go to the


university is justified. His application goes forward to the Joint Universities is Recruiting Board. Surely, that s the body to decide whether, in the national interest, the student should have deferment, rather than the hardship committee, whose chairman may be living next door, in which case the same considerations would not apply as would apply if the matter were dealt with by the Joint Universities Recruiting Board.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: On a point of Order. Is the Parliamentary Secretary entitled to make such unwarrantable strictures on these people, the members of the hardship committees. who gave their services for nothing to help the national cause?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It is not the duty of the Chair to assess what are unwarrantable strictures.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not indulging in any strictures upon these committees, who did a great job of work. I am only saying that they are not competent to decide this question. I say that they will not be big enough to go into the relevant considerations, but will be inclined to take account of personal considerations, which have nothing to do with it.

Mr. King: Is it not a fact that deferment is granted on the certificate of the headmaster, and that great pressure is brought to bear on headmasters?

Mr. Ness Edwards: We have gone over this matter before, and I have described it in detail. It is unfair to the Committee, at the end of the Debate, to go back over points that have been decided. Let me now deal with one other point. There are no exemptions at all in this Bill. No exemptions are granted to anybody. They are not exemptions, but deferments or postponements and nobody is excluded from liability. I think I have covered most of the points raised. I have done my best to deal with a very difficult piece of technical machinery and administration, and I hope that, in view of what has been said, the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Stanley: We have had a long and I must say intensely interesting Debate on this subject. I find myself in considerable difficulty to know what to do,

because, frankly, I want two things which I cannot get, either under the present system or under the Amendment. I want to get, if I can, the methods of deferment with the results of postponement. All that I have heard has convinced me that the methods of deferment and the procedure adopted for deferment constitute the proper procedure for cases of this kind, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary has been conclusive on that point. On the other hand, I want to get the results of postponement. That is exactly the object of this Amendment, and not what the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite thought it was. The object here is not to create a privileged class. We do not feel that these university students and apprentices should have the double advantage of taking their education at the time they want, and, in addition, the possibility that, by deferment, they may, in the end, escape part of their military service. We think that they should be able to have their education when they want it, and when it is convenient to them, but, when they have completed it, they should be like everybody else and go through their military service.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. If we catch them before they are 25, then we are all right, and the present machinery does catch them before they are 25, but, through this machinery of the hardship committees, we cannot touch them. If we catch them before they are 25, they do not lose their liability, and the important thing is that the present machinery does help us to get the student before he reaches the age of 25, so that he is not, in fact, able to escape.

Mr. Stanley: He may be caught in time, but he may slip through the net, and I understand that, in some part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman told us how it was possible that that might come about. I want it made clear that, in those circumstances, a person cannot have either deferment or postponement and unusual chances of education which will result in his being exempted from any part of his military service. Unless the hon. Gentleman can give us some assurance, between now and the Report stage, that he will look at this Clause again, and give us a further assurance on the avoidance of any possibility of escape


from military service, we shall have to press this Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Pickthorn: Mr. Pickthorn rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry if hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to resent the continuance of this discussion—

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I showed no resentment.

Mr. Pickthorn: In view of the fact that we have sat continuously for 19 or 20 hours out of the 24, there is one thing I want to say, and I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not here. We have been told more than once, and more often from the other side of the Committee, that this Bill is one of profound constitutional importance and I agree. We all know that it has been agreed between all parties that, in the life of this Parliament, Bills of constitutional importance are to be taken on the Floor of the House, and that pledge is now being kept. All I ask is whether it is being kept in the spirit, or whether we are not now in the difficulty of having this matter discussed either by hon. Gentlemen who have not been here for much of the earlier discussion—and I do not in the least blame them for that—or by those in my situation, who think that, whether or not usually intelligent, they are now much less intelligent than usual. I am bound to say that the Ministers responsible for this part of the Bill have treated us with the greatest courtesy and kindness, and, in my experience of these matters, have been almost unprecedentedly patient with us. The fact remains that, at the point we have now reached, I am not quite clear about this matter, and I would undertake to bet that there are not 6o hon. Members of this Committee who are—I think, it would be fairly safe to say, not even six.
If that is so, is this really the proper way to legislate on a matter of this importance? I cannot believe it is, and I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench think so at this moment. I speak wholly for myself, when I say that I am not quite sure what we ought to do at this stage. I am, rather dubiously, in agreement with my right hon. Friend that what we want is the method of one form of procrastination—if I might use a not very suitable neutral word—with the results of another. I am

inclined to think that, perhaps, he is right. Let us see how we can get that result. I think most of us are in great difficulties about what the results of this Amendment would be. I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to say now, whether he thinks it proper to go on in this way. I am not blaming right hon. Gentlemen; they are in very difficult circumstances. But, if they do propose to go on in this way, I ask them to consider whether they ought not to give us some unusual assurances in this matter. We have all tried very hard, but I think we ought to have a promise that all possibilities of some new arrangement have been considered, so that we all understand what any suggestion means, and so that the Ministers understand exactly what they can offer towards what we want. I think that unofficial discussions on such points are always undesirable, especially in this case in view of the high level or scope of this legislation. In the absence of any such assurances, the result of this part of the Bill will have no direct connection with the real will of the majority of hon. Members in this Committee, unless some steps towards such an ad hoc arrangement are possible.

Mr. Isaacs: The hon. Gentleman referred to an ad hoc understanding. I do not know if what I am about to say comes within that classification or not. I appreciate the point put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). We want to see that nobody escapes their military service. That is the first thing. We will certainly look at the Clause, and, if we are satisfied that anything more can be done with it, we will try to do it. With regard to the second point which was put by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), we will consider whether we can issue a White Paper or some other document setting this matter out in clear and precise terms, and I hope that, in view of what I have said, hon. Gentlemen opposite will withdraw the Amendment and let us get on.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask the Minister if he can say what numbers he has calculated for deferments, because the Parliamentary Secretary has said that people with deferments could be caught up to the age of 25? Could he say what the average of deferments is to be?

Mr. Isaacs: That will be very difficult. If I said that, the whole circumstances would be altered.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's double undertaking, first, to look again at the Clause and, secondly, to consider the issue of a White Paper setting out the provisions of this complex matter, I beg to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Keenan: I object. I have been up about a dozen times, and have not had an opportunity to speak.

The Deputy-Chairman: Is the hon. Member objecting to the withdrawal of the Amendment?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: Yes, I want to put a point to which no reference has been made, on this Amendment. I am not so much concerned about the categories of people involved, or about people who may try to secure an easier means of deferment or postponement of national service. I want to urge the Minister not to agree to any change that will make it any easier to avoid service under the National Service Act.
What I cannot escape from in this connection is that this is the first of a number of Amendments which ask that certain categories should be postponed for an indefinite period. Looking at. them, I wonder who will be left for national service if they are carried. It seems to me that the number will be considerably limited. I do not know how many this Amendment would affect if it were carried. With regard to others who are eligible for national service, with nobody behind them, with no likelihood of a profession or of university or technical education—are they to be the only persons who will be called up at 18 or 17½?
I am agreeing to national service because I believe it is essential in the circumstances, and in that I fall out with a great many of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. But let us have national service; let everybody who reaches the age of 18 accept that responsibility, and do not let us be too ready to exempt those for whom these pleas are being made. I am not saying that a case cannot be made out for them, but I certainly do not want to see what went on during the war, when there was an oppor-

tunity, which was embraced in many cases, for both boys and girls to get out of service because of the weakness of the machine. I urge the Minister not to give way either on this Amendment or subsequent Amendments. I hope he will keep to it, and make a proper approach to national service, so that it will be national service for everybody, irrespective of the class from which they come.
Amendment negatived.

The Deputy-Chairman: In calling the Amendment which is on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson)—in page 19, line 24, at the end, to add:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act—

(a) any person liable to he called up for service by virtue of this Act, who declares himself to be a conscientious objector, shall not be sentenced to suffer penalties imposed by or under the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1946, on more than one occasion; and shall, thereafter, be discharged from any liability to further service under this Act;
(b) no person who has declared himself to be a conscientious objector shall be subject to the death penalty for any offence against the provisions of the National Service Acts."

—I should point out that the Amendment he will move will cover only paragraph (a), and not the last three lines of which paragraph (b) consists.

Mr. Stanley: I did not quite understand you, Mr. Beaumont, when you said that this Amendment would cover paragraph (a) and not paragraph (b).

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for West Ealing will leave out the last three lines of the Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Stanley: But is not this rather a new procedure, that the Chair can call on an hon. Member to move a different Amendment from the one he has on the Order Paper?

The Deputy-Chairman: If an Amendment is in the wrong form, it is open to the Chair to advise accordingly.

Mr. Stanley: What is meant by that, Mr. Beaumont?

Mr. James Hudson: I do not wish to make difficulties, but I respect the advice, which I accept.

Mr. Stanley: We do not know what it means.

Mr. J. Hudson: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman.

Hon. Members: Tell us now

Mr. J. Hudson: I was advised that it would be better for the discussion to take place on the main question that I wish to raise, namely, the conscientious objector, and not to raise the issue in paragraph (b) because it is a separate issue which arises under the National Service Acts.

Mr. Stanley: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. That is exactly the opposite of what the Chair has said. The Chair has said.that the Amendment would cover only paragraph (b).

Hon. Members: No.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, paragraph (b) would not be moved. The Amendment to be proposed deals with paragraph (a) as set out on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 24, at the end, to insert:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act any person liable to be called up for service by virtue of this Act, who declares himself to be a conscientious objector, shall not be sentenced to suffer penalties imposed by, or under the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1946, on more than one occasion; and shall, thereafter, be discharged from any liability to further service under this Act
If the matter raised in paragraph (b) is to be discussed, it will have to be discussed on some other occasion and in some other place. I will proceed to deal with the issue that is left. It has been debated long in the House, and the general points are well understood. I am sorry to say that the commitments made in connection with the administration of national service, especially the commitments made by the Prime Minister in the days when the principal Act was introduced, have not been fully implemented in the treatment of conscientious objectors. I shall make my point best understood if I refer to a case I have brought to the attention of the Home Secretary. It is the case of a young man, a member of the Society of Friends, who on two occasions has been convicted in the courts and given a month's imprisonment because he did not accept the conditions laid down for him by a tribunal under the Military Service

Acts. He was given work on agriculture, and declined to accept it. Hon. Members may think he was wrong to do that but, on strict conscientious grounds, he felt that to accept an arrangement even for purely civilian duties, imposed upon him in connection with the prosecution of the war, was in violation of his conscientious convictions. So although the tribunal was clear in its distinction, he declined to accept that distinction. He went through the whole process of being indicted as a conscientious objector, was imprisoned for a month, came out and went through exactly the same process again, and was again condemned to a month. This has happened this year and he is now awaiting—or may be awaiting, we do not know—a further procedure of this kind.
This case has been presented to me by the clerk of Jordans Monthly Meeting of the Society of Friends. They are much impressed with the genuine conscientious convictions of this young man, they stand by him in his scruples, and they have brought his case to my attention. He is one of many others whose cases I do not know as clearly as his, but it is a case in continuance of many similar cases in the last war from which we supposed that we had escaped. We thought that under the National Service legislation which was brought in in 1939, we had taken steps to prevent our falling into this difficulty again.
I knew a teacher in the last war who was given not work on the land, but work in the school where he was engaged. It was a good school and a pleasant job. There was no question of his dodging military service and looking for a "cushy" place; the "cushy" place was offered to him, it was his own place. But he said to the tribunal, "You are endeavouring to fasten me down under an arrangement so that you may place your finger upon me as a teacher in school to fit up the war machine in a totalitarian position. You are prepared to organise me in that position in order that you may send someone else in my place, and I decline to enter into an engagement which, while it may assist me, will put someone else in the difficulty that I have conscientiously declined to accept for myself." Hon. Members may say again that that was a wrong action, but it was an action conscientiously made by a man


moved by his convictions, the consequence for him was a series of imprisonments that went on all through the war—first, three months, then six months, then imprisonment that ran for nearly two years, until he was released at the end of the war.
It was that kind of case that the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain referred to when, at the time of the introduction of the principal Act, he said that we were in a position where we no longer wanted to face such a difficulty again. To quote his words:
But there is a great variation in the way in which people are affected by scruples of this kind.
that is, of a conscientious objection kind:
There is the most extreme case, where a man feels it is his duty to do nothing even to aid or comfort those who are engaged in military operations, although it may well be that those military operations have been forced upon us by the aggression of some other country. Probably that is the smallest of all classes of conscientious objectors. But it often happens that those who hold the most extreme opinions hold them with the greatest tenacity.
Now that Act was accepted, and Mr. Neville Chamberlain went on to say:
We learned something about this in the Great War, and I think we found that it was both a useless and an exasperating waste of time and effort to attempt to force such people to act in a manner which was contrary to their principles."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1939; Vol. 346, c. 2097.]
I submit that at that point Parliament had agreed to accept the convictions of people of this kind and not to continue to imprison them. To be going on today under the Military Service Acts and to be threatened, as we are now in connection with this Bill, with a continuance of this process is something that I am sure my right hon. Friends on the Front bench will want, with all their power, to avoid if possible.
My Amendment—and I am no lawyer—may not be drafted as it ought to be, but I submit to my right hon. Friends that they ought to be able to give us a clear undertaking today, either by accepting this Amendment or some other designed to do the thing that I wish to happen, that, if a man has been punished once under the law—however big or however little the sentence may be—after declaring himself to be a conscientious objector and declining to carry out what he feels he cannot carry out conscien-

tiously, it should be settled once and for all when his sentence has been served, and that thereafter he ought to be discharged from any further obligation of service in the Forces.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Solley: I interrupt in no captious spirit, but in order to obtain information. As I understand it, the proposal is that he should not continue to suffer certain penalties under the National Service Acts. Would my hon. Friend be good enough to say the nature of offences which he has in mind in respect of which penalties are imposed? There is a world of difference between an offence under the Army Act, and an offence under the National Service Acts.

Mr. Hudson: The difficulty is in connection with cases such as that of which I have given details.

Mr. Solley: Just one case.

Mr. Hudson: It is that kind of case, where a person is required to do certain things by a decision of a tribunal. If he does not do those things, it is an offence against a provision of the National Service Acts, and for offences of that sort I am suggesting that after one sentence has been served, the matter should be finished. I am the more anxious to make this plea, because I know I am on very difficult ground. A remarkable step forward has been made already by the House of Cornmons in national generosity—

Mr. Ayles: Justice.

Mr. Hudson: —and justice, on this question. I agree entirely that if we could get the punishment laid down under the provisions regarding conscientious objection, all sorts of dodgers may get out of their obligations to serve. I do not deny that at all. Indeed, I take pretty much the same view as George Bernard Shaw took when dealing with this problem of obedience to the inner voice of conscience in the Preface to "St. Joan," when he spoke about the possibility of the voices such as St. Joan listened to being not at all the voices of the Infinite, but the hallucinations of a madman, or the promptings of a criminal, or of a social saboteur. It may be the case that a person claiming conscientious objection had not those grounds at all. I know that fear exists, but the fact that we have got


to a point where the State has admitted in an Act of Parliament that a conscientious objection can be genuine and ought to be accepted, and that persecution of the conscientious objector ought to stop, is, in my judgment, a clear indication that Parliament and the public conscience is now at a point where we can no longer accept the old method of cat-and-mouse punishment, until by some process of oppression the conscientious objector is driven into a position which, if left to his conscience, he could not accept.
I hope the Committee, if not in the actual terms of the Amendment, will agree that it should be the duty of the Government to prevent such a case as that of the young man mentioned in the Jordans Monthly Meeting of the Society of Friends, whose progress through prison, a progress now going on, occurring again. That case, and all cases like it, should come to an end, and I hope the Government will accept a provision by which it will prevent their recurrence in any circumstances.

Mr. Isaacs: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has put this Amendment down so very late. I appreciate the earnestness and sincerity with which he has moved it, and I think he has done so under very great physical inconvenience to himself. I wish he had put it down a little earlier—

Mr. J. Hudson: Mr. J. Hudson rose—

Mr. Isaacs: Let me finish my sentence. The Amendment cannot possibly be accepted—

Mr. Hudson: Would my right hon. Friend permit me to explain that I put the Amendment down under Clause I, but it was suggested to me that that was the wrong place? I put it down a number of days ago, and it was suggested that I should move it to this position. I thought it right to accept that. I am sorry to have caused inconvenience.

Mr. Isaacs: I was not making any complaint, because, as I said earlier in the afternoon, we are very much appalled by the idea that it is possible for a man to be constantly going in and out of prison for the same offence. But, the trouble with this Amendment is that it refers to
any person … who declares himself to be a conscientious objector.

There must be some satisfaction that he is a conscientious objector. I cannot accept the Amendment for that, and other reasons, which I will not go into now. But I would like to know what the Committee feels about this matter. I am not very skilled in dealing with these matters in Committee, but I would like to know, as we cannot accept this Amendment, whether it would be possible for me to have a look at this before the Report stage, and bring forward an Amendment then on which the House could say something.

Mr. Hudson: I think the statement is so generous that I ask permission to withdraw—

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Ealing West (Mr. J. Hudson) wish to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. Hudson: I was looking at several people; I think I desire to withdraw—[Interruption]—I do not ask for anything at the moment.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, because it seems that we are all agreed. I suggest that there are two defects in the Amendment from a machinery point of view. One is that it does not define what the one penalty shall be. If passed in this form, there would be a wide variety of penalties for what is the same offence, and the other defect is that the simple declaration could hardly be accepted by anyone as sufficient. I have tried my hand at some sort of suggestion, and I put it forward, in great fear and trembling, for what it may be worth. I suggest that something like this might meet the case, and might be considered between now and another stage:
Where any person who has claimed exemption under this Act, or the principal Act, on conscientious grounds, and who has either had his claim rejected, or granted subject to conditions which he refuses to accept, has served a sentence of "—
My right hon. Friend can consider what period it should be—
for failing to fulfil any obligation under this Act, he shall be exempted from further penalty, or further liability to serve.
That would provide two things which are lacking in the Amendment; that there should be at some stage an examination by the tribunal, even though it be abortive


and fail and even though there is to be one penalty, and that it would be a definite and limited penalty, with the sanction of Parliament.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I do not want to prolong the discussion. I think there is very little difference on principle, but I see a difficulty in the original proposal and in that proposed now. We all want to avoid what is called compendiously but inelegantly cat-and-mouse procedure. Equally, I think the overwhelming majority of us want to prevent any system arising under which a National Service Act, if passed, could he avoided on any substantial scale. Both are important considerations. The difficulty about what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) suggested is that, whatever the period was—and that itself would be a most delicate operation, to select the exact number of weeks, months, or years in prison which has to be served before the man comes out altogether—supposing the period were too short, people who wanted to evade the Act on grounds which could not properly be called conscientious, would evade it deliberately by serving the prison sentence. There would be some such persons, I have no doubt. If, on the other hand, the period was made too long, there would he the opposite and equally catastrophic effect that a number of people who ought to be sentenced lightly for a first offence would, in fact, receive a heavy sentence from the courts precisely because in doing so they would carry in their minds the belief that by doing so that would wipe out the whole thing altogether. I think it would have in practice a bad effect on the mind of the tribunal in imposing a sentence of this sort.
If a figure is chosen betwixt and between, there would be cases of both sorts, and some courts would impose heavy sentences, while others would impose light sentences, and persons would evade military service for one reason or another, and get out through a loophole. In an Act of Parliament we cannot be certain that we achieve the result desired in this case. This is a case where provision should be made in the machinery for revision after each case when the man is sentenced. The fact that he is sentenced for failing to comply with direc-

tions of a tribunal ought automatically to bring his position as a conscientious objector into review, so that he would have his case personally considered at each stage, and so that there would be, as far as one can ensure it, no case where a man was put in and out of prison repeatedly on conscientious grounds. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee would like to see protections inserted in the Bill on behalf of the individual. I hope that the Minister, whose courteous and friendly attitude has impressed the Committee, will not exclude the prospect of achieving his object by administrative machinery.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Hudson: In view of the generosity of the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, at the end, to insert:
In Subsection (2) of Section one of the National Service Act, 1942, after the words a notice under this Section, 'there shall be inserted the words' or having been registered under Section fourteen of the National Service Act, 1947:
This Amendment is necessary because it has now been proposed and agreed that Clause 14 shall be brought into operation on the passing of the Act instead of on 1st January, 1949. That modifies Section 1 (2) of the National Service Act so that men who have been permitted to register for military service before their normal age will now be covered by the provisions of this Clause. This Amendment is necessary so that we can at the same time see that it is removed to the Third Schedule

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 10, line 28, at the end, to insert:
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act male British subjects called up for service in the year nineteen hundred and forty-five or the year nineteen hundred and forty-six shall be released after a period not exceeding two-and-a-half years.
This Subsection shall come into force on the passing of this Act.
I hope that I need not detain the Committee for long about this. If my recollection is right, and if it is just right enough I shall be slightly surprised, so far as my recollection goes, we have fairly fully covered this point on an earlier occasion; I hope that the Ministers will correct me if my recollection is not right. The short


point may be put easily. I think, and again I hope the Minister will correct me if I get any of the technical details wrong. I think that when this Bill becomes law, presuming it does so without much change, the effect will be that there will be a set of young men whom I call Section C, that is, those coming into the Services under this Bill, who will have a maximum whole-time service of 12 months. Moving backwards, there will be a second section whom I will call Section B, people called up during 1947 and 1948, who, perhaps under statutory authority, or more probably, under Ministerial assurances and the White Paper, will have a maximum of 23 months. Then, moving further back, there will be Section A, those older people who are already in the Forces and have been there for some time, and who will not have, as the matter stands, a terminus put to the amount of service which His Majesty, by his Ministers, may require from them. I hope that that is a correct statement so far as it goes.
If so, I hope that I carry the Committee with me in saying that it is evidently desirable that some kind of terminus should be put for Section A as well as Sections B and C; I do not say the same terminus, but as we have tried to taper off Section B towards Section C, so we should surely try to taper off Section A towards Section B.
I hope that the Ministers are fully in agreement with me so far as that point goes. If that is so, the object of this Amendment is to say that Section A ought not to be held for a continuous period of more than 30 months, as contrasted with their slightly younger brothers, who are to have a maximum of 23 months, and the following batch, who are to have a maximum of 12 months. If I may repeat something I said earlier in the day, it seems to me that to resist that suggestion, the main meaning of that suggestion—I am not arguing for the exact form of the Amendment—does involve taking a very odd attitude. It does involve saying that at the moment when we assert that it is not right or proper to ask, by Statute, for more than 12 months, it remains right to go on asking for more than 130 months from people who are at present held under what really has become a legal fiction, the fiction that what was called "the

present emergency," the war with Germany, is still, in some sense, going on.
To resist the substance of this Amendment, it becomes necessary to adopt that proposition. I hope that I carry the majority of Members with me in saying that that proposition is untenable. If so, then my proposition may not be exactly the right one, but something like my proposed Amendment is clearly just. I hope that Ministers will find it possible to tell us how they can find it practicable to assent to the logical result of that, or on what logical grounds they can resist it.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): The Amendment which the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) has just moved has a somewhat similar effect as the previous Amendments which we debated yesterday, or in the early hours of this morning; with this difference, that the hon. Gentleman is seeking, by this Bill, to speed up the demobilisation of men who are not in the same category as those who are specified in the Government's White Paper, which we debated in the early hours of this morning, or yesterday. Hitherto, all men who have been called up under the National Service Act have been released on what is known as the age-and-service release group plan. That, on the whole, has worked very satisfactorily.
The men to whom the hon. Gentleman seeks to give some speeding up preference are not in the same category as those defined in the White Paper, and they will come out in accordance with the release plans already announced, and other plans which will be announced as time goes on, for completing what the hon. Member called his Class A category—in other words, those men who were called up during the emergency, in the normal way, under the previous National Service Acts. I am afraid it is impossible, by this means, to force the speeding up of their demobilisation. That is a matter with which we have to deal administratively. I am not at all sure that it would not be unfair to those whose release groups are already announced if we did what he suggests, in this Amendment, we should do. For those reasons I cannot include what he wants, which I am sure we all want, and we shall endeavour to do it by administrative action. We cannot do it in this Bill.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope that Members of the Committee will not think that answer satisfactory. whatever they think of my proposition. There was not the least attempt to meet my reasons, which I think were fair reasons. It is not for me to assume that hon. Members agree, but I think that my argument was a fair and fairly exact one. There has been no attempt to meet any part of it. It is the mere assertion of the existing state of affairs. I suppose someone has told the Secretary of State for War that the existing state of affairs was the best possible state of affairs; that is all we are told. Really, I hope the Committee is not prepared to accept that view. Let me make another suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. If it is impossible to say that these men in my Section A may get out at the worst after 30 months, although men in his Section C are to get out after 12 months, if that is impossible because of the necessity of holding them for practical use, that could be got round by having a Clause in the Bill to impose upon these young men what they are at present not having imposed upon them, a certain amount of reserve service. It will be far less an interruption of their careers if they could get out a little sooner now. I should have thought that as far as garrison or tactical use, or eventual use, if there is to be a crisis, or in the next two or three years a renewed emergency, was concerned, that such an arrangement might have been more use to the War Office than what is now being insisted upon.

Mr. Bellenger: Mr. Bellenger indicated dissent.

Mr. Pickthorn: It is all very well for the Secretary of State to shake his head. He must do a little more than come here and give us a paraphrase of an existing arrangement as one half of his argument, and a shake of his head as the other half of his argument. There must be something more he can do. I appeal to the Committee. This discussion, which has not been acrimonious, has not, from our side, been more controversial than could be avoided. I ask Members of the Committee to agree with me that, they ought not to allow the Secretary of State to get away with this unless he can put up a reasoned argument. If they choose to think that his reasoned argument is better than mine, or even if they choose to think that if his reasoned argument is

not better than mine, that it is not the fault of the available arguments but something else, whatever they may choose to think, let us at least have some reasoned argument before this thing is disposed of, after a continuous debate of nearly 24 hours by what HANSARD or somebody else the other day called the mere "ipse fixit" of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Charles Williams: I quite see that the right hon. Gentleman is in a very difficult position here. He is now to get recruits who will come under the Bill, and there is, in between, a section of the community, many of whom have been called up since the end of the war, Then we have the group with whom we are dealing under this Amendment, who will have to serve much longer than the people who come under the provisions of the Bill. I am not saying it is unfair. In anything connected with war and service we try to be fair but circumstances cause great hardships. We do not want to be unfair with the time-and-age principle more than we can help, but there does come a time when there is unfairness inflicted by that. If there comes a time when there are groups having to serve two or three years—men who have served for 18 months or more, with little or no hope of getting out for another 18 months—while others will be serving for under two years, they will have a sense of hardship. It is not an easy matter to decide but one does find a sense of real hardship in these matters. Realising the great difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman, I would ask him, as there is another stage of the Bill, if he will have another look at the matter and see if, in some way or other, he cannot work out something so as to try to remove, at any rate, some of the hardship from these men who today are living in a state of complete indecision as to what service they really have to do. It is that indecision which is causing the real trouble. They do not know where they are, It cannot be good for the Services that they should be in that state. They cannot produce their best. Many are men who have volunteered to get their service done and who have put their education on one side for the time being. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure the Committee that he will consider this matter again I ask him whether he cannot give some assurance that he will try to bring a closer


limit to the amount of time which these men have to serve in order to give the men a real idea of where they are?

6.45 p.m.

Brigadier Low: I would like to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of the argument used by my hon. Friend. Surely, this Amendment is extremely relevant to the purpose of the Bill. Here we are dealing with men called up under the National Service Acts. In this Bill we have put a definite end to the period of service, instead of a continuation of the principle of age and length of service. It is, therefore, reasonable that we should try to bring a definite end to the service of those who are now serving in the Forces. If it is so reasonable, then I submit to the Committee that, as we have said on other occasions, here is a very strong case for making that end statutory rather than relying upon the so-called pledges or intentions of the Government. I would remind the Committee that apparently even a pledge of the Government on this important matter given in a White Paper can be watered down, it may be, unintentionally.
The Committee may remember early this morning discussing the pledge given in Command 6831 entitled "Call Up to the Forces in 1947 and 1948." That was a distinct pledge. Though that was accepted as a pledge at that time, the Minister of Labour, probably unintentionally, in reply to one of his hon. Friends, on 4th March, said that it was only the intention of the Government. He did not say that it was a pledge. He was pressed to give a pledge but he watered that pledge down and only gave it as his opinion that it was the intention of the Government. That might have been done unintentionally. The right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten, for the time being, that a definite pledge had been given in the White Paper. It is for that reason that there is a certain amount of uncertainty about these matters.

Mr. Isaacs: I am relying on my memory. Did I not say that it was the intention of the Government to carry out that pledge?

Brigadier Low: No. I will read the right hon. Gentleman's words. The question was put:

Is it not possible to say, quite frankly, that in no circumstances will a conscript called up after 1st January be released before men called up before 1st January?
That question was put by the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan.) The reply was:
I can only repeat that that is the intention of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 229.]
There is a great difference between intentions and pledges. I am not charging the right hon. Gentleman with any illfaith. There is a further difference between pledges and statutory Clauses. It is for that reason that we on this side of the Committee have urged consistently that the Government should adopt a statutory termination of the service of men called up under National Service Acts. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again about this matter. He may not approve of the actual terms suggested in the Amendment. If he does not, could he suggest an alternative? This is merely a ceiling. He may be able to release men before the term is reached. All that we ask is for him to lay down in an Act of Parliament what is the maximum period of service which men now serving in the Forces may be called upon to give.

Colonel Ropner: I wish to add my protest against the short speech made by the Secretary of State for War. I listened carefully and I am sure that no one would say that he attempted to answer the argument put so cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a pressing sense of grievance amongst these men in the knowledge that the chances are that they will not be released until men who have been called up very much later. It is wrong that that state of affairs should exist. In spite of the fact that demobilisation under age and service groups may be working more or less satisfactorily—that is a matter of opinion—it is unfair to say that that must now stand and that there must be no ceiling at a time when there is no war to fight.

Mr. Swingler: Hon. Members opposite say that there is this sense of grievance amongst members of the Forces. Surely, it is clear, as was reiterated this morning by the Minister of Defence, that the Government gave a definite pledge that men called up for service in 1946 or 1945


will be released before those called up for a two-year period in January, 1947. That is a definite pledge which was reiterated by the Minister of Defence this morning.

Mr. Bellenger: I wonder whether it would shorten the Debate and help hon. Gentlemen if I say that the reason I curtailed my speech was that I thought that everyone had read the White Paper of May, 1946, Command 6831, which has been accepted by the House. The classes of Servicemen to which the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) is referring are specifically dealt with in the White Paper. Perhaps the Committee will allow me—although I thought it was understood—to read what that pledge was:
Men already serving in the Forces at the 31st December, 1946,"—
with certain exceptions which are not material—

Mr. Pickthorn: Oh, yes; certainly, they are material.

Mr. Bellenger: Except those serving on voluntary terms—
will be released according to the existing age and length of service scheme, and all such men will be released before the end of 1948, that is to say, before any of the men called up in 1947. Moreover, it will be the aim of His Majesty's Government to release during 1947"—
that is this year—
all men called up before the 1st January, 1944.
That, I take it, is specific and I should have thought it covered the point.

Colonel Ropner: I am not sure that I have really followed what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. If he said that what this Amendment seeks to put into statutory form will happen in any case, 1 ask him to accept the Amendment. I hope that he will appreciate the sense of injustice which will be engendered unless some sort of provision is made. In view of the arguments advanced from this side of the Committee, I hope he will consider the matter before the Report stage.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I do not want to repeat the arguments which I think were so brilliantly put forward by my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), but to give briefly some of the reasons which prompted him and me to put this Amendment on the

Order Paper. I am not seeking to cast any doubt on any pledge given by any right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is of the utmost importance that when we are passing into law a Statute of this novelty and importance we should do justice and appear to be doing justice. It is in the interests of hon. Members in every quarter of the Committee, to whatever party they belong, that on the whole this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should be accepted, as far as possible, as fair. I believe that one of the great blemishes is that in the Bill itself, as in all the discussions that have taken place, hon.. Members are always showing great concern about men who are going to fall within the provisions of this Measure in the future, but they so often seem to forget—though in reality I am sure that they do not—the hardship and sense of injustice felt by those already serving under our present system.
Possibly because of an occasional Question that I have put to the Minister of Labour, I have had a good deal of correspondence not only from such men, but very often from their parents who are very much concerned with their education and the possibility of their entering a university. I hope I have got it right when I say that one of the evils of not accepting some such principle as my hon. Friend and I have sought to embody in this Amendment, is that eventually there will be far too many people all coming out at nearly the same moment, which will be very adverse to their prospects and their careers and will very much accentuate the difficulties of universities in seeking to provide for them. The advantages in the interests of justice of having something on the face of the Statute are overwhelming. I beg hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether something of this sort cannot be achieved. Nobody who knows the technicalities will say with any confidence that the Amendment we have put on the Order Paper is, in its exact form, necessarily right. I dare say that all sorts of technical criticisms could be brought against it. I suggest to hon. Members that it is really no answer to say that if one looks up some non-statutory document issued some time ago and finds some sort of satisfactory pledge, or if a Minister makes some sort of promise in the future, that is any substitute for having something that these men already in the Forces can look to in the very same


Statute that enacts the permanent system. I hope that the Committee will bear in mind the interests of justice and the sense of justice which I am sure all are anxious to secure. For those reasons I strongly support the case so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: This Amendment, like several previous ones, obviously puts all of us in a considerable difficulty. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) made a very strong case, a case with which we all sympathise if we are trying to do our best to finalise the service of those who have been called up just as in the rest of the Bill we are finalising the service of those who are to be called up under the new Act. All of us must want to stretch as far as we can to give those now serving the same privileges of exact fore-knowledge that will be enjoyed by those called up under the new Act, but at the same time, with a sense of responsibility, we know that we cannot force upon the Minister an Amendment, however just in itself, which might have the effect temporarily of disorganising the Services and leaving us for a period unable to meet our commitments. Both sides have a difficult choice to make.
We discussed similar matters at an early hour this morning. On that occasion we were trying to put in statutory form the exact terms of the pledge indicated in the White Paper, and there was some agreement that if that pledge were given, it was just as well that it should be reproduced in statutory form. Approval of that was expressed from all sides of the Committee. This Amendment goes somewhat beyond the pledge given in the White Paper. To that extent it is different from the two other Amendments that we moved. My recollection is that on those other two Amendments the Secretary of State for War—

Mr. Bellenger: The Minister of Defence.

Mr. Stanley: —the Minister of Defence said that between now and the Report stage he would look at the whole question and see what could be done. I suggest he adds this third Amendment to the other two, because they all fall into the same sort of category, and sees what, if anything he can suggest to the House. If he would

promise to do that, I would recommend my hon. Friends to withdraw the Amendment on this occasion on the full understanding that if when we came to the Report stage the Minister of Defence was not in a position to offer any satisfaction on these points, they would be at liberty to raise them again.

Mr. Alexander: I did say that I would look at those matters again. I think the right hon. Gentleman appreciated our difficulty with regard to the maintenance of a certain strength in the interim period between now and 1949, which is a matter of great concern to those who are responsible for meeting our commitments in every part of the world during that period. Though I promised to look into the matter, I could not make any admission that I would be able to make any provision in the Statute on those matters. I certainly had not seen the proposed Schedule which hon. Members opposite have prepared.
In this case the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. This Amendment goes even further than the one we discussed early this morning in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), but I would be quite willing to look into the matter to see if there is any way in which we can assist in bringing any further sense of satisfaction to the men concerned. On the point made by the right hon. Gentleman it must be clear from the passage read from the White Paper that the period had been quite clearly finalised.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: The object of the age and service group release system introduced during the war was to ensure that the people who had done their service during the war should be released fairly. The result of that has been that those who are being released under that system have so far felt that they have already done their job and that they are, as it were, ticking over, waiting for their number to come up. They are, in the current phrase, "group happy." We are moving to an entirely different system where there is a defined period of service. There is a very strong case for putting in the Bill something that will tell men who did not actually serve in war but have been called up since exactly how they stand. They will ask how this Bill affects them.


It cannot be said that merely because they will be released before the national service men are called up, they are not affected by the Bill. They may be affected by the Bill, for example, under Clause 8, so that argument cannot be advanced. The Minister has said that he has commitments to meet. On the other hand, he has made a pledge. These two things are incompatible, and there is a very strong reason for getting it absolutely cut and dried in the Act.

Mr. Pickthorn: We are in some slight difficulty here because we have not HANSARD for the previous Debate. would not for the world accuse the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence of deliberately now saying less than I thought he offered last night. I think it will be found on reference to the words that he was a little less forthcoming this evening than he had been yesterday. I hope he will look at these words very carefully with that in mind. He intimated yesterday that he meant to look at the thing with a real and genuine hope to find something that could be done.
I have that more particularly in view on two considerations, one being the want of argument we have had from the War Office and the other being the constitutional importance of all this and the fact that we are having this on the Floor of this House in response to a pledge that such things should be taken in Committee of the Whole House. We are having it done in such a way and with such a continuum of sitting as to make real discussion by a full Committee impossible. Ministers ought to find in their consciences that each one of these declarations or pledges—if the right hon. Gentleman has arguments to make, I am willing to give way to him. He seems to have arguments enough to mutter but not arguments enough to utter. Ministers ought to find themselves on these occasions very particularly tied to an extremely conscientious view of the assurances they have given. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Brigadier Low: I wish to ask the Minister of Labour about Section 10 of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, which will continue. It relates to

arrangements as to civil servants. The right hon. Gentleman knows all about it.

Mr. Isaacs: We shall put an Amendment on the Order Paper to take it out of the Schedule.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Postponement of liability to be called up for service.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is the Clause to which reference was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour during a discussion on a previous Amendment moved from this side of the Committee. This Clause as it stands is, I think, clear enough. It makes it clear that, in cases where the postponement certificate is granted, in fact there is no avoidance of service but a mere postponement. It seems to do that quite clearly, but the question I want to ask is, does the same consideration apply where it is not a case of postponement but of deferment? I shall be very grateful if the Minister of Labour could make that point clear.

Mr. Isaacs: After some of the mistakes I have made this afternoon, I do not know whether I can, but I will try. This Clause, which the hon. Gentleman says is clear enough—I should have thought that "clear enough" was "clear enough" he seems to mean clear enough—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So far as it goes.

Mr. Isaacs: My hon. Friend went to a great deal of trouble this afternoon to try to clear up in the minds of hon. Members the difference between postponement and deferment. The statutory postponement of liability is to be distinguished from deferment, which is granted administratively in pursuance of the discretion as to the calling up of a particular individual which the Minister has by reason of the fact that the power to call up for service under the Acts is permissive and not mandatory. Sometimes, we may be asked to grant a man a long administrative deferment. If his application is granted and he gets deferment, he might possibly go beyond his 26th birthday before he is called up. This is of little importance at


the moment, when the upper age limit is still 51, though it is not being used, but the Bill reduces that age to 26, with the result that a man may pass out of liability under the Bill during the period of his postponement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Deferment?

Mr. Isaacs: He passes out during deferment. I hope that is clear.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend that, whether it is clear or not clear, it does not go far enough. I would like to ask a little more about this very important Clause on the postponement of liability for call-up, and. I would like to know what are the grounds for postponement and for deferment of call-up. Cannot the Minister give us some idea of the grounds? I know Clause 9 deals with dentists and doctors, but surely there are other students and other people? Is it automatic so that everybody who wants to have his call-up postponed can have it simply by applying, and a thing for which they are not required to apply? At 7.30 this morning, when we dealt with Clause 5, the Minister answered with great sincerity and thoroughness many of the questions we put, but there was one about medical and dental students, whether they could take their call-up when they wished rather than wait until being qualified, to which the Minister did not give a reply. I think it is rather an important one. I do not think it will be used by many students, but it would be of great value, as I think I said at 7.30 this morning, to those who cannot get into the medical schools, and could do their national service with great benefit to themselves and to the nation.

Mr. Isaacs: I will see if I can face the bowling this time. Postponement is statutory, deferment is administrative. The Minister can end a deferment when he wishes and it is the intention to terminate all deferments before the man concerned reaches the age of 26. I hope that will meet the point.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 19.—(Laying of Orders in Council and regulations before Parliament.)

7.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, in page 11, line 10, at the end, to insert:
other than an Order made under Section twenty-three thereof.
Perhaps the Committee might conveniently take the Amendments in lines 14, 15 and 16 along with this one. They are substantially drafting Amendments to secure a very simple and straightforward purpose. Their object is to remove any Order in Council which relates to the Isle of Man from the scope of the requirement that the draft must be laid before Parliament, and that the Order may not be made unless our Parliament here approves the draft. This of course is to conform to the recognised constitutional practice in regard to subordinate legislation affecting the Isle of Man. It is contrary to practice that Orders in Council relating to the Isle of Man should be submitted to the approval of this House. The Minister will be in consultation with the Isle of Man Parliament, and they take into account local law and conditions, and it would of course be inappropriate for them to come before this House.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I appreciate the purpose of this series of Amendments, but I am a little concerned about the second one, in line 14, to leave out "in Council." With those words omitted it would appear that any Order made under this Bill—
may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order made in like manner and subject to the same conditions.
I would like to ask the right hon. and learned- Gentleman whether there are any orders other than Orders in Council to which this Subsection (2) can possibly apply, and, if so, would he say what they are. This Amendment would appear to be giving power to vary orders made under this Bill without those orders coming before this House, and without any opportunity being given of praying against them. I do not know if that is the intention; if so, it is going a little further than the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated in moving the Amendment. If there are orders other than Orders in Council, I would like to know what type of orders he is referring to.

The Attorney-General: I took it very quickly. The position in regard to the Amendment in line 14 is that it is consequential on the new Clause of which the marginal notice is "Termination of power to make up civil remuneration," and on the new Subsection (2) to Clause 2, which enables the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State respectively to make orders which are not in fact Orders in Council.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 11, line 14, leave out "in Council."

In page 11, line 15, leave out "like," and insert "the same."

In page 11, line 16, at the end, insert "as the original order."—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 11, line 18, to leave out from "shall," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:
be of no effect unless they are approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
This is a small but, I think, quite important skirmish in a very ancient and continuous battle, the battle that delegated legislation should be permitted only where it is clearly shown to be necessary, and that where it is shown to be necessary the maximum control should be maintained by this House. I hope that no hon. Member will think that this is simply an Opposition matter. Hon. Members who have been in this House at all long will know that a considerable number of us have fought this battle along the same lines, whichever party has been in power.

The Attorney-General: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to tell him that the battle is already won. I can explain what I think the hon. Member has in mind. He may not wish to give way to me.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am quite willing to do so if the Attorney-General prefers to make his speech now. Reserving any right I may have, I am quite willing.

The Attorney-General: I think I have the point in mind which the hon. Member desires to put. It is that any Regulations, as distinct from Orders, made by a Minister should be subject to approval. I apprehend that that is why he wishes

to delete the words, "by a Service authority."

Hon. Members: Wrong Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: The Attorney-General appears to be speaking to the wrong Amendment. We are on the next one.

The Attorney-General: I am very sorry.

Mr. Pickthorn: I must say that it is very gratifying indeed to find a Minister so anxious to help us in saving time, but if time is to be saved Ministers must be quite sure they know which point of the Bill we are at.
Shall I start all over again, or does the Attorney-General retain in his mind my opening tropes? Some of us have always wished that there should be as little delegated legislation as possible and that whenever there must be delegated legislation there should be that additional Parliamentary control which is implicit in the positive procedure rather than the negative procedure. On almost all occasions where the negative procedure is provided for in Bills, some of us have put that point. I hope that the Committee will consider that we are on particularly strong ground in pressing that argument on this occasion. We think it is universally admitted that we are making a great and unprecedented interference with the ordinary constitutional arrangements of this country. I believe that that is universally admitted to be true.
Secondly, we are doing that in pursuance of a pledge given by the Government on coming into Office. We are doing it on this Bill in Committee of the whole House. I would argue, if it were to be argued, that there have been other Bills to which equally that pledge ought to have been held to apply. That point I will not now argue. This I will say: This is one of a very few Bills to which the Government have admitted that the pledge applies. Even on this Bill the Government are applying the pledge very much more in the letter than in the spirit. If they admit that this is a Bill of immense constitutional importance, they are not really giving that due amount of Parliamentary control which they promised when they said that these matters should be taken in Committee of the whole House, by sitting more or less continually for anything—we do not know what—from 36 to 48 or 60 hours.
That does not really give the House that opportunity on this kind of legislation which I think we all thought on all sides of the Committee that the Government were promising us two years ago. I ask hon. Members opposite to agree with me that their leaders are bound in this Bill to meet any reasonable, constitutional demand that is put up by either. I think—I am sorry for my voice, which has been rather overworked lately—that the general case (a) for as little delegated legislation as possible and (b) for the maximum of positive procedure when there must be delegated legislation, is peculiarly and almost uniquely strong in this connection. I beg the Committee not to believe that this Amendment should be rejected except upon very strong and explicit arguments.

The Attorney-General: I am very sorry for the misunderstanding. I must be a little hard of hearing. I thought the Amendment to line 17 was being called. I agree that great constitutional issues are involved here, but what is of constitutional importance is the Bill, the Act, when the Bill passes into law. Regulations of the kind which may be made by the Services Departments hereafter, and which will merely carry out and provide the machinery for implementing the new constitutional principles which Parliament itself will have implemented when it passes the Bill, have always been regarded as proper subject matter of the negative Prayer procedure. The practice is only to adopt the affirmative Prayer procedure in cases where delegated legislation itself involves something which is in the nature of a new principle or a new constitutional issue. Where the delegated legislation is merely machinery for carrying out and bringing into effect or into operation a constitutional principle which has itself been adopted by Parliament in the Bill, the procedure that is followed is the negative Prayer procedure.
It is not desirable to add to the classes of case in which the affirmative Prayer procedure is adopted, except where it is perfectly clear that the subject matter of the Regulations is likely to raise issues of great constitutional importance which Parliament would certainly be likely to wish to debate. That is not the case with these Service Department Regulations, and to

make them the subject of affirmative Prayer procedure would involve a considerable waste of Parliamentary time. It would mean that before any of them could be brought into operation we should have to move them in the House and to provide an opportunity for Debate upon them. Therefore, I am sorry that we are not able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Harold Davies: I want to know exactly what is to happen under this Clause. We are afraid of the growth of delegated legislation and so I humbly appeal to the Committee. I do not know whether I can make my case clearly to the Committee, but I believe that any regulation made under the Bill by a Service authority has to be laid before Parliament and that
if either House within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such regulations are laid before it resolves that the regulations be annulled"—
and this is where I am getting to the hub of the problem—
they shall thereupon become void; but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations.
I appeal for information here. Do those words mean that if this House decides that a Service authority has made a regulation which is unconstitutional and shall be void, we are not allowed to touch that regulation till the expiry of the 40 days? In other words, for a period of some 40 days, the Service authority has had the supremacy over the sovereign body of the people.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) has put the point with extreme clarity, and, if I may say so, has slightly understated it in one respect. For instance, if this House rises before the beginning of August, or at the beginning of August, as I understand is the intention, and as I understand is the pretext for the performance to which we are being subjected, and does not meet again until near Christmas, then the Service regulations will be imposed and enforced. If, for instance, they are made in the first week in August, they will be in force for months without this House having any opportunity at all of saying that the regulations are bad, and if this House does say that they are bad when it first has


an opportunity of doing so, that will not affect anything done under the regulations.
I am rather astonished by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in justification of this form of procedure with regard to the regulations which can be made under this Bill by a Service authority. He said that he did not think that Parliament would be likely to wish to debate these regulations. I very much doubt the accuracy of that statement when one comes to consider the various matters on which the Service authorities can make regulations, and when one bears in mind the importance, from the individual's point of view, of seeing that there is some co-ordination between the various regulations, and that the particular man who is directed, for instance, to the Naval Reserve, has not cast upon him by regulation far greater obligations than those cast upon a man who is directed to the Army or to the Territorial Reserve. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Clause 2 (4), he will see that the Service authorities have power to make regulations as to what constitutes a day's training. That will be a matter affecting a considerable number of young people. I can well imagine that, when it sees those regulations, this House will want to say something about them. When we look at Clause 4, we find that regulations may be made for the compulsory transfer of a man from one Reserve to another without any option, except in a few cases, on the part of the individual affected.
In Clause 5 there are regulations saying what terms of service shall be equivalent to terms of whole-time or part-time service. I should have thought that these were matters affecting the liberty and the duties of the subject which this House would anxiously consider, and would desire to have the opportunity of considering and expressing an opinion upon before the regulations came into force. We do not want to hold up this Bill, the principle of which we support, but I think that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could meet us in this respect, that would meet with the approval, not only of hon. Members on this side of the Committee but, obviously, from the observations of the hon. Member for Leek, with the support of hon. Members opposite.
I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has been very good in

this Committee, if he would look at this matter again, because the need for coordination between the Regulations of the various Services is imperative. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence will agree that, so far as that can be ensured, it should be ensured. Probably the best way of ensuring it is by saying that none of the regulations shall have any effect until approved by Parliament.

Mr. S. Silverman: Disliking and opposing this Bill as I do, I am strongly tempted to support the Amendment. But, if I am to look at the matter conscientiously as one of delegated legislation, without giving effect to my desire to make the Bill not work, then I am bound to agree with the Attorney-General's view of the matter. It seems to me that one of the criteria in deciding whether to use the negative or the positive procedure, which is really the issue involved between the Bill and the Amendment, is whether the Government need the regulations in the meantime, subject to the right of the House to challenge and annul them if it disapproves of them at a later date, or whether the things are of such a nature that they ought not—whether Parliament deals with them or not—to be law without the positive and affirmative approval of Parliament.

Mr. Pickthorn: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Departments do not already know what regulations they are going to need under this Bill? What "meantime" does he refer to?

Mr. S. Silverman: I had in mind the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke just now, when he said that, supposing we have regulations, it would, in any case, be a very long time before the House could challenge them. That, of course, is true, but if we use the affirmative procedure, then it will equally be a long time before the Department, administratively, could have them, and it might well be—I do not know—that in these circumstances, the Bill would have to be held up until November.
I think that the distinction is correctly given effect to in Clause 19. It will be seen that in Subsections (1) and (2) of that Clause, the affirmative procedure is followed, subject to the Amendment which the Committee accepted a moment ago on a narrower point. In general, however, the Orders in Council required


under Subsections (1) and (2) are expressly given the affirmative and not the negative character, whereas in Subsection (3) the negative form is used. If one considers what is done under Subsections (1) and (2) and contrast that with the kind of thing done under Subsection (3), one appreciates very clearly the difference between the kind of Regulations which demand affirmative procedure and the kind of Regulations which are dealt with in the other Amendment, which, After all, the House can, by Prayer, control.

Mr. H. Strauss: The hon. Member for Nelson and Calne (Mr. S. Silverman) would accurately have stated the case for the negative procedure had he been right in saying that the positive procedure would make the Bill unworkable. But in suggesting that it would make it unworkable, I do not think he gave a conclusive reason, and certainly that argument was not the argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Attorney-General. He did not assert that this would be unworkable, and I think that if the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will examine the particular matters dealt with in this Bill, he will see that in the long time before it actually comes into operation there will be plenty of time to adopt the affirmative procedure. I do not think, therefore, that it can be said that the affirmative procedure would make the scheme unworkable.
But the right hon. and learned Gentleman put a different ground. He suggested that it was only right to have the positive procedure if matters of great constitutional importance arose under the Regulations. I think he overstated the case. The point that the Committee really should consider is whether Parliament is likely to wish to debate these Regulations. I believe that in answer to that question, hon. Members in every quarter will say, "Yes, they are Regulations which the House will wish to debate." Then the main difference between the positive and negative procedure is this: If it is the positive procedure, the Government must find suitable time for it. If it is the negative procedure, the Government do not find convenient time for it. There was a period in our Parliamentary history when the distinction between those two forms of procedure may not have been of such over-

whelming importance. It is right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have made it of enormous importance. As we know from the arguments which take place every Thursday, Parliamentary time is one of the most important matters concerning the working of our Parliamentary institutions. Therefore, if the Committee come to the conclusion, as I am certain they will, that they will wish to debate these Regulations, then they will be Regulations for which the Committee will desire the Government to find convenient time.
To secure that position, they have only one means, and that is to adopt the positive procedure. For those reasons, I say in answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, that in this case the positive procedure does not make the Bill unworkable, nor, indeed, has the Attorney-General suggested that it did. That being, I think, the only argument that could be used against the positive procedure, I say that the positive procedure is the one on which the Committee should here insist.

Mr. Byers: I seriously ask the Government to look again at this matter, because the question of the positive or the negative procedure is very important from the point of view of the individual. Let me remind hon. Members that during this week we have had a number of affirmative Resolutions to allow people to open cinemas on Sunday. It seems to me to be quite wrong that we should apply that positive procedure in that case, and deny it on a great constitutional issue like this. I suggest it is a constitutional issue, for, indeed, what greater constitutional issue can there be than the rights of the individual under a compulsory scheme of service of any type? I was surprised that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) took the line that he did in his speech. I am not criticising him. I am saying this more in sorrow than in anger, in that I believe he came to that conclusion because he thought this positive procedure would make the Bill unworkable, and if he felt it would make the Bill unworkable he was perfectly entitled to make that point.
I suggest that it will not make the Bill unworkable. What it will do—and I think I can say this from my administrafive and operational experience—will be to make it far more difficult for the


Service authorities. What we shall, in fact, get will be more care and greater thought devoted to these Regulations. We shall get far fewer of them, because every time anybody in a Government office has got to draft one of these regulations—and the Secretary of State for War knows this very well indeed—he will say to himself, "Wait a minute, this is going to call for a Debate. Let us be careful. Let us have a word with the Air Ministry. Let us go and see what is happening in the Admiralty." But when the penalty is that of being "carpeted" by the Minister for letting him in for an all-night sitting instead of getting the thing right in the first place, I say we shall get far better regulations; we shall get far fewer of them, but they will be well thought out.
7.45 P.m.
I do not wish to make a party point about this, but perhaps I might give an illustration. In the last six months we have had a regulation to decrease the amount of poultry feeding rations. I am quite convinced that if that regulation had been an Act of Parliament or an affirmative Resolution of the House, the Ministry of Food would have scoured this country to find the 200,000 tons of feeding stuff required, rather than take up Parliamentary time and face the Leader of the House and the Ministers concerned. I suggest that the positive procedure will not make the Bill unworkable. We would get fewer and better regulations and better co-ordination, and the interests of the individual would be far better considered under the positive procedure than under the negative procedure.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I approach this question with an entirely open mind. I must admit that the views expressed by hon. Members opposite certainly require most careful consideration. I feel Parliament has to watch all the time and guard its rights against the Executive, There is a constant danger of too much delegated legislation which Parliament is unable to control. At the same time, we have to preserve a balance. A great deal of legislation in these days is very complicated. Some Members think there should be less. I think we are right to have a lot. On the other hand, there is a danger of the cluttering up of Parliament and of the whole procedure getting bogged down in a mass of words. Therefore, we have to draw the line between

affirmative and negative Resolutions. Negative Resolutions can be obtained easily. Affirmative Resolutions have to be put before Parliament, and time has to be found for them by the Government. I can see the Government's point of view. Affirmative Resolutions may make too serious a demand on the time available. I think the answer to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers), who has just made an interesting speech, is that a negative Resolution can be dealt with, if necessary, by a Prayer. In that case, I think it is not necessary to insist upon an affirmative Resolution, and, where it is necessary to raise Prayers, we can find the necessary time.

Mr. Byers: The same applies in the case of affirmative Resolutions.

Mr. Philips Price: Anyway, we have got to draw the line somewhere.

Sir John Mellor: I find some difficulty in appreciating exactly which side the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Philips Price) is on. I think the only real support that the learned Attorney-General has had has come from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). My impression is that he most emphatically underlined the intervention of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) which, I thought, was a most impressive contribution. There is one thing which is quite apparent, namely, that these regulations will be discussed by hon. Members who have the opportunity of discussing them. It is quite true that hon. Members can put down a Motion to annul regulations where the negative procedure is applicable. But some hon. Members may have some diffidence about doing that, and it may be that, first of all, they would like to ascertain, after debate, just what are the pros and cons in the matter. They may not wish to take the step of putting down a Motion to annul a regulation when they are not at all sure whether they approve or disapprove it. If the Government adopt the affirmative procedure, then automatically at the end of Government Business, a Motion is moved from the Front Bench that the regulation be approved, and then hon. Members have an opportunity of asking questions, not necessarily with any hostility towards the regulation but in order to elicit information, and to express their views. An opportunity is there given for the House to


give proper consideration to the regulation without anyone taking the initiative in expressing hostility by putting down a Motion to annul.
The only argument the learned Attorney-General put forward in favour of the negative procedure in this case was, first of all, that he thought it was more in accordance with practice, and that if the affirmative procedure were adopted it would involve waste of Parliamentary time. What does he mean by a waste of Parliamentary time? I do not consider that Parliamentary time is wasted when hon. Members on both sides wish to discuss something. In regulations arising out of this Bill, above all, it is evident that discussion will come from both sides of the House. In the course of the Debate so far we have seen, I think, that, if anything, rather more contributions have come from the other side of the Committee than from this side. Therefore, this is not a case where there would be likely to be in the minds of the Government any fear of their Business being interrupted or held up out of any partisan motives. The discussion on these regulations, if it takes place, will be not on a party basis at all. I think the learned Attorney-General will need to consider this matter fairly, and to give a further and better reply before we leave it, as to what view he takes of the contributions which have been made from this side and from the other side of the Committee in the course of this discussion. It is perfectly evident that great interest will be taken in these regulations. If the regulations give no offence to any hon. Member they will go through with q nod. What harm is done? It merely means that a Minister will have to put in attendance at the end of Government Business, and to bow to the Chair when the matter is reached in the course of Business. That is all a Minister need do: bow to the Chair. If he is asked by any hon. Member for an explanation he ought to give it. If discussion arises as a result of that explanation the Government ought not to resent it. We ought now to have a further explanation from the Attorney-General, because it is not good enough merely to tell us that it is more in accordance with practice, and that if the affirmative procedure were adopted it would be a waste of Parliamentary time.

The Attorney-General: I am always happy to try to respond to the appeals

of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). I hope I am as jealous as the hon. Member of any possible encroachment on the proper functions of the Legislature by the Executive. When I put this matter to the Committee I sought to put it on the basis of what I conceive to be the true constitutional doctrine, and not on any grounds of expediency, although there are, indeed, very strong practical reasons against the adoption of the affirmative procedure. The position is that all the previous National Service Acts have had regulation making powers, some of them wide powers, which have been subject to negative prayer procedure. In the last two years, of course, as the Committee very well knows, we have passed a number of Statutes which contain regulation making powers of a very drastic nature, sometimes also subject to negative prayer procedure. But the regulation making power under this Bill is really of a very restricted kind. Even if it did happen that particular regulations had been made, and were subsequently declared void by a negative prayer in this House, no great constitutional or individual harm could, in fact, be done.
Just look at what the regulation-making powers in fact, are. First of all, under Clause 2, to define what constitutes a day's training. It is perfectly idle to say that there is any constitutional issue in that. The real constitutional issue is whether the Service authorities should be empowered to decide what is a day's training. That is the constitutional issue, and that is the issue which this Committee have already disposed of by deciding to confer that power upon the Service authorities. Whether the Service authorities, in the exercise of that power, decide that a day's training is constituted by four hours or four and a half hours is, quite clearly in my submission to the Committee, not a constitutional issue at all. One can see the practical point in making that particular regulation. Suppose that in August it was found, owing to experience in camps and so on, that it was desirable to alter the period of hours from six to four, or from four to six. Would it really be desirable that the Service authorities should have to wait until Parliament met in October, perhaps later, when they would be able to get an affirmative prayer before the House?
Take the next one, under Clause 4, to provide for transfer from one auxiliary


force to another. The constitutional issue there is, whether the Service authorities should have power to provide for a transfer by regulation from one force to another. That is the constitutional issue—a very important one, certainly. The Committee have already affirmed that the Service authorities should have that power. They have decided that constitutional issue. How that power is exercised in practice is a mere matter of machinery in carrying out something which this Committee have decided should be vested in the Service authorities. It is the same under Clause 5, to define
what terms of Service shall be treated as equivalent to terms of whole time and part time service …
and to provide for notification of changes of names and addresses. I ask the Committee to say that this is a mere matter of machinery, and that it would be quite wrong to apply to it the affirmative procedure.

Mr. Pickthorn: I really do think the arguments of the Attorney-General get "curiouser and curiouser" His first argument, I think, was that for the necessities of war and under the necessities of war great powers of this kind have been given to previous Governments, and therefore they should go on being given. His second argument is this; Although during the war we were always promised, whenever any of these things were done, that they should be for the war period and that only, yet he now says that in the postwar period—if the last two years are properly described as "postwar period"—the Government have, in fact, again taken vast powers of delegated legislation, and therefore they should now be allowed to take more powers of delegated legislation. That does not seem to me to be a very good argument. His third argument is, that it is not a constitutional issue, and that the constitutional issue is whether the Services should have these powers. Of course, that is a larger constitutional issue; but that does not exclude the possibility that these are constitutional issues.

Mr. S. Silverman: They are not.

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has made one speech on this matter. He may make another speech on this matter if he likes, and I hope he will; but dogmatically to interject "They are not" is really not at all helpful.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Silverman rose—

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not going to give way to him now. He can speak again after me if he chooses.

Dr. Morgan: Quite right.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. and medically learned Gentleman and I share a background in a small, geographically remote part of the world, and I am glad that, politically, we should tend together at this moment. The argument of the Attorney-General was, as I was saying, that this is not a constitutional issue because something bigger than this is a constitutional issue. He says this is not a constitutional issue at this point, because at this point these are only small matters that are concerned—changes of address, little things of that sort; and then he says it would be administratively impossibly inconvenient that they should not be able to alter the regulations about these things without having to wait. If these are small administrative matters I should have thought that even the Secretary of State for War, with the help of the organisation he has behind him, would be able to get the thing right at the first shot—at any rate, to get the thing good enough, that it would not go wrong just after he had gone off grouse shooting at the beginning of August. Or, perhaps, he grouse shoots from his yacht—a difficult thing to do, I believe. It really ought not to be impossible for them to get these regulations so nearly right that they do not often have to come to Parliament for new regulations. I do hope that the Committee are not going to allow the Attorney-General to get away with this argument, and certainly I hope we shall divide on the point.

Mr. Gallacher: There is great suspicion here in regard to this Bill, and, in particular, in regard to the methods by which the regulations are to be made. One reads:
Any Order in Council may be varied or revoked—

Mr. Pickthorn: We are long past that. Like the Attorney-General, the hon. Gentleman has got the wrong Amendment.

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member kindly make his speech?

Mr. Gallacher: I have been busy about the House, and I was asking, having returned, about the Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not want to make a speech, but I do want to apologise to the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) for my seeming discourtesy. for what seemed to him to be dogmatism in the interjection I made. The fact that one thing is a larger constitutional issue does not exclude the possibility that the smaller question, though smaller, may still be a constitutional issue; but I thought that, perhaps, a regulation deciding whether four hours, or three hours, or two hours shall constitute a training day for a period of 6o days might properly be described as not being a constitutional issue.

Mr. Pickthorn: That is not what everybody said was a constitutional question. What we said was a constitutional question in that connection was, that the House of Commons should have the assurance, by a positive method, that,

for instance, in that connection, the various Service Departments are keeping in step with each other, and that they should not be free to run off in devious or divergent ways. I think that this is a matter on which we should assure our constituents that we have constant watch and positive control.

Mr. S. Silverman: That was not in the hon. Member's original speech. The question obviously was whether the regulations which are made under the authority of Subsection (3) of this Clause are, in fact, matters of constitutional importance, or matters only of administrative detail; and I should have thought, subject to what the hon. Member thinks, that they were matters of administrative detail, and not matters of constitutional law.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word but,' in line 21, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 109.

Division No. 197.]
AYES.
[8.6 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Alexander. Rt. Hon. A V.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hobson, C. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, Haydn (St, Pancras, S.W.)
House, G.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Deer, G.
Hoy, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hubbard, T.


Awbery, S. S.
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.)


Ayles, W. H.
Diamond, J.
Irving, W. J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Donovan, T.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Bacon, Miss A.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Janner, B.


Baird, J.
Durbin, E. F M
Jay, D. P. T.


Balfour, A
Dye, S.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Barstow, P. G
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jager, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Barton, C.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Bechervaise, A. E[...].
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F J
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Beswick, F.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Bing, G. H. C.
Ewart, R.
Keenan, W.


Binns, J.
Farthing, W. J.
Kenyon, C.


Blackburn, A. R
Field, Capt. W. J
King, E. M


Blenkinsop, A
Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
Kinley, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Foot, M. M
Kirby, B. V.


Boardman, H.
Forman, J. C.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Gibson, C. W.
Leonard, W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gilzean, A.
Leslie, J. R.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Levy, B. W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Gocch, E. G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Burden, T W.
Goodrich, H. E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Burke, W. A.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.



Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Longden, F.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Grey, C. F.
McAdam, W.


Champion, A. J.
Grierson, E.
McAllister, G.


Chafer, D.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.


Chelwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mack, J. D.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Gunter, R. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Cobb, F. A.
Guy, W. H.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Collins, V. J.
Hall, W. G.
McKinlay, A. S.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
McLeavy, F.


Cook, T. F.
Hardman, D. R.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Hardy, E. A.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mainwaring, W. H.


Corvedale, Viscount
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mallalieu, J. P. W




Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Randall, H. E.
Tiffany, S.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Ranger, J.
Titteringlon, M F.


Marquand, H. A.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Tolley, L.


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Rhodes, H.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Middleton, Mrs. L
Richards, R.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Mikardo, Ian
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Viant, S. P.


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Rogers, G. H. R.
Walkden, E.


Mitchison, G. R.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Walker G. H.


Monslow, W.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Morley, R.
Sharp, Granville
Warbey, W. N


Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (L'wish'm, E.)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Watson, W. M


Mort, D. L.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Webb, M (Bradford, C.)


Moyle, A.
Shurmer, P.
Weitzman, D.


Nally, W.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
West, D. G.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J


Oldfield, W. H.
Simmons, C. J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Oliver, G. H.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Paget, R. T.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wilkes, L.


Palmer, A. M. F
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Pargiter, G. A
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Parker, J.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Parkin, B. T.
Solley, L. J.
Williams, W R (Heston)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Sorensen, R. W.
Willis, E.


Pearson, A.
Sparks, J. A.
Wise, Major F. J


Peart, Capt T. F.
Steele, T.
Woodburn, A


Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Stress, Dr. B
Woods, G. S.


Popplewell, E.
Swingter, S.
Wyatt, W.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Sylvester, G. O.
Yates, V. F.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Price, M. Philips
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Pritt, D. N.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Zilliacus, K.


Proctor, W. T
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)



Pryde, D. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pursey, Cmdr. H
Thurtle, Ernest
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Daines.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Rt. Hon W S. (C'nc'ster)


Amory, D. Heathcote
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C E


Baldwin, A. E.
Gridley, Sir A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Beechman, N. A
Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Bennett, Sir P
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Nutting, Anthony


Birch, Nigel
Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Boothby, R
Houghton, S, G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Bowen, R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C
Pickthorn, K.


Bower, N.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Hope, Lord J.
Prescott, Stanley


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Howard, Hon. A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig O


Butler, Rt Hon. R. A (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Byers, Frank
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Renton, D.


Carson, E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Jennings, R
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Snadden, W. M


Cuthbert, W. N.
Linstead, H. N.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Davidson Viscountess
Lipson, D. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Digby, S. W.
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drayson, G B.
McCallum, Maj. D
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Vane, W. M. F.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Walker-Smith, D.


Duthie, W. S.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marples, A. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)



Fyte, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gage, C.
Medlicott, F.
Mr. Studholme and


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Mellor, Sir J.
Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.


Gates, Maj E. E.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)



Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I have been listening to the discussion on various Amendments,


and I think there is very great suspicion and doubt about this Bill and about the regulations arising out of this Clause. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) argued that, if the positive method is adopted it would make the Bill unworkable, which was an argument that made it clear that, if the House of Commons passed this Bill containing this Clause, it would be finished with the whole business. That is the argument. I heard the hon. Member for Kingston-n-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) saying earlier that he was very unhappy about this Bill. The hon. Member is only one of a great majority of unhappy men in this Committee. In view of the character of this Clause, and of the conditions under which we are going to place these lads, in view of the regulations which may be brought in and later discovered to be of a worse character, I hope hon. Members of this Committee will consider whether they ought not to get together for the purpose of killing this Bill and restoring freedom and peace to these lads. If they read the Clause carefully, they will see that that is the job they ought to do.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I had understood that the Amendment which stands in the names of my hon. Friends and myself was going to be favourably treated, and I do not know whether, on the question of the Clause standing part, I should be in Order if I referred to the issue which my Amendment raised.

The Chairman: The Amendment was not called, but the hon. Member would be in Order in referring to the contents of the Clause.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In that case, I have been misinformed, but I am obliged to you, Major Milner, for what you have said. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) was good enough a few moments ago to refer to some remarks I made on an earlier Amendment and I agree with him that there are a lot of hon. Members who are unhappy about many provisions of this Bill. That was the reason why I and my hon. Friends sought to impose a restriction which would strengthen the control which the House of Commons would have of the delegated legislation permitted under this Clause. We took the view that the regulations which this Clause authorises will be regulations of very great importance to a gen-

eration of young men who will be taken, in time of peace, by the State from their normal occupations for the purposes of the State. Therefore, it seems to us most important that the treatment of those young men should not be too far removed from close Parliamentary scrutiny and supervision.
For that reason, within the Rules of Order, I can only say that we are now faced with regulations affecting the lives of these young men which can only be dealt with, thanks to the decision which the Committee has just taken, late at night on Prayers put down by hon. Members; Prayers by which these regulations cannot be amended, thereby making it extraordinarily difficult for hon. Members who desire, helpfully and constructively, to cause variations in small parts of these regulations. As this Clause now stands I feel that we are handicapped at every turn in doing what will be one of the most important duties of Members of the House of Commons during the years in which this Bill is in force, and that is, seeing that the interests of the men for whom we are responsible for being taken from their homes are properly looked after and safeguarded. That is not a responsibility which we can, in our consciences, delegate to any Minister or to any Department, however well advised or however eminent.

Mr. E. P. Smith: I agree very heartily with what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said. It is a matter of the greatest importance that it should be possible for the House of Commons to amend regulations rather than merely to vote them void. I cannot understand how the Government can have avoided putting in some words similar to those which my hon. Friend has inserted in his Amendment which has not been called. It seems to me to have been something which the Government should have themselves put in in the first instance, and I shall find great difficulty in voting for this Clause unless we can have some satisfactory assurance from the Front Bench on this point.

Sir J. Mellor: Is not the Attorney-General going to reply to the points made by my hon. Friends?

The Attorney-General: I had hoped that I had replied adequately to the speeches made before the Division, but the sugges-


tion that there should be a power not merely to reject these regulations—and that power is firmly vested in Parliament—but in addition power to amend them is, I hope to persuade the Committee, wrong in principle, unworkable in practic, and unnecessary in performance. It is wrong in principle because the whole essence of the practice of delegating legislation to subordinate bodies is to make sure that Parliament is absolved from the duty of examining or debating or framing in detail the legislation it has delegated. If the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) desires to discuss the details of how names and addresses should be registered, he should have secured that that should be dealt with by Bill, not by subordinate legislation. That is the whole purpose of it, to save Parliament the necessity of examining details of this kind.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to interrupt? He says that the purpose of delegated legislation is to make it unnecessary for Parliament to examine these matters. Surely the whole purpose of the laying of these Orders on the Table of the House is to enable hon. [Members to examine these matters. I would suggest to the learned Attorney that it is their duty to their constituents to do so.

The Attorney-General: I was dealing with the question of amending them—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: He used the word "examine."

The Attorney-General: I was dealing with amending them—which I thought was the point—discussing, debating and examining them in detail with a view to amending them, and I was saying that the whole point of delegated legislation is to avoid the necessity for Parliament to deal with them. If Parliament wants to deal with matters of that kind, it does not delegate the legislative power to do it to somebody else. Secondly, in regard to amendment, it is quite impracticable to give a power to amend in either House of Parliament because if you have one set of amendments in one House and another set of amendments in another House, there is no means whatever of reconciling the two. It is quite impracticable. Did the hon. Gentleman wish to say something?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The learned Attorney-General has asked me to intervene. It is not unknown for the House of Commons to insert a number of Amendments in a Bill and for another place to insert other Amendments in a Bill, for that Bill to come back, and for the matter to be resolved between the two Houses. It is surely not outside the flexibility of our procedure to do that in the case of these Orders.

The Attorney-General: I should have thought that it was, There is a well established and constitutional procedure for securing that the House of Commons view ultimately prevails in the case of Bills; there is no such procedure, nor could there be, in regard to amendment by Prayer. I hope the hon. Member will see quite clearly that that is so. You cannot have amendment by both Houses because you cannot have machinery for reconciling them. The hon. Member's purpose is really quite unnecessary. If it is thought by the House that particular regulations ought to be amended, ought not to be put into operation in their existing form, the House rejects the regulations, points out to the Minister what the amendments ought to be, and gives him an opportunity of laying them afresh.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely this point about the impossibility of reconciling Amendments in one place and another only underlines the imperfection of delegated legislation, because one House can annul, and you may, therefore, have the approval of a regulation in one House, but it may be annulled by the other. The Government can always deal with the situation if inconsistency arises because they can always revoke a regulation, if it has been amended in a fashion of which they disapprove by the House in which they may not have a majority. They can then make a fresh regulation. It seems to me that when the Attorney-General considers that it is not appropriate that Parliament should examine in detail the contents of regulations and have an opportunity to amend, he is really taking a strange view. I should have thought that the question of whether or not Parliament should be able to examine detail and amend, should be a matter for Parliament itself and not for the Government. If an opportunity were given to Parliament to amend regulations it would remain at the will of


Parliament, and I think it should. It is not likely to happen that Amendments of the trivial kind visualised by the Attorney-General would be put down.
Considerable interest has been taken in the contents of this Bill, and it is quite evident, from the interest that has been taken on both sides of the Committee in the whole of this matter, that great interest will be taken also in the contents of the regulations and in their substance. It would be most desirable that hon. Members on both sides of the House should have an opportunity of criticising those regulations by means of putting down amendments which would then be debated. At present, we only have the opportunity of criticism by negative Resolution and, as hon. Members know only too well, we have no opportunity in the House to do other than accept or annul. It may well be that the regulations would be regarded as satisfactory as a whole by both sides of the House; on the other hand, there may be particular portions of them, of some importance, that this side of the House or that may feel strongly should be a changed. Hon. Members may not at all wish to annul the regulations, but they may wish to amend them. It is often asked by a Minister, "What will happen if the regulation is annulled? There will be chaos, because there will be nothing in its place." That would not arise if there were power to amend. I think this is a matter of which hon. Members in all parts of the Committee should take great notice. Although the regulations as a whole may be desired, in special respects there may be an excellent reason for amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) says that it is not likely that trivial amendments would be put down to the regulations, but I venture to think that if he is an hon. Member of this House it is most likely that a whole series of amendments will be put down—

Sir J. Mellor: Sir J. Mellor rose—

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member is a master of this subject of delegated legislation, and I think he has put down or supported as many Prayers as any hon. Member of this House. Sometimes it has

been a question of substance, but quite often points involved have been quite trivial.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the hon. Member allow me—

Hon. Members: Order.

Sir J. Mellor: On a point of Order. Is it not according to the usual courtesies and customs of this House that when an hon. Member directly criticises the conduct of another, the other should be given an opportunity to reply?

Mr. Fletcher: I am trying to answer the speech made by the hon. Member in respect of amendment of regulations. He is suggesting that the House should have the power—

Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Member said much more than that. He said that if the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was a Member, there would be plenty of trivial amendments. I think that, in accordance with the usual custom, I should be given an opportunity of challenging him when he said that. If he can give a single example—

Mr. Fletcher: Quite obviously it is not possible to give an example offhand of trivial Prayers which have been put down, but I am quite sure I am speaking within the recollection of hon. Members when I say there have been occasions when Prayers have been put down against delegated legislation, not because of some substantial point, but because of some quite minor point

Sir J. Mellor: Sir J. Mellor rose—

Mr. Fletcher: really do not want to give way again, but to answer the point the hon. Member made in regard to the idea that this House should have the right to amend regulations made under this part of the Bill. He said that it was unlikely that trivial Amendments would be put down, but the Committee must realise what the position would be if that were the case. It would be open to anyone to put down, not one Amendment, but a series of Amendments of the regulations, and all of it would involve Debate. If the House had power to amend regulations it would lead to a ridiculous position. As there is a recognised system whereby the House has the power to approve or annul an order, that would be an entirely undesirable innovation in our


whole system of delegated legislation. Over and over again the House has expressed the view that the right way of dealing with delegated legislation is to put down a Prayer, so that the general substance of the regulations can be discussed. The Executive can then have the benefit of seeing what particular points are raised by hon. Members, If the order is approved, well and good; if it is rejected on some ground, it is for the Executive to take the opportunity of making a new order to remove any blemishes which have been brought to light.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the hon. Member give instances of any Prayers which have been moved in the House, and which have been successful?

Mr. Gallacher: That is the Lord's Prayer.

The Chairman: We cannot pursue this question any further.

Mr. Fletcher: There was a good example the other night.

Sir J. Mellor: I would like to deal with the question of trivial Amendments. The Chair has power to select Amendments. In regard to the criticism of my hon. Friends and myself, who the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) says have frequently moved to annul orders in order to discuss matters of minor importance, how else could we have discussed those matters? The only way we could have brought them before the House was by a Motion to annul the orders. While the matters may not have gone to the root of the whole order, or have been of vital importance, nevertheless they have been of sufficient importance for the House to consider, and that was the only way in which we could bring them before the House.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: think the Debate is now going off on a false point. Whether an Amendment is trivial or not, is not an important point, I remember a saying of Bagehot's about this House that good talk was better than bad talk; that is obvious, but then came his important point that bad talk is better than no talk at all. Power to put in a trivial Amendment is the chance to put in a vital Amendment and it is upon that right that liberty rests.

Mr. Stanley: Although at first I was rather doubtful about the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Goldfield (Sir J. Mellor) the speech of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E Fletcher) has entirely convinced me of it merit. He has shown conclusively that the result of the present method forces people to put down Prayers to annul orders on trivial points, which otherwise could be dealt with purely by amendments. I do not propose to vote against the Clause on this occasion, because we do not want to see the Clause go, but I hope my hon. Friend will have a better chance on the Report stage of raising this point, and I only hope that then the Attorney-General will be saved from his friends.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 21.—(Interpretation.)

Amendments made:

In page 12, line 14, leave out "eighteen", and insert "twelve".

In line 17, leave out "eighteen," and insert "twelve"

In line 19, at the beginning, insert:
For the purposes of this Act."—[Mr. Ness Edwards.]

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to move, in page 12, line 26, to leave out "(being a person who", and to insert "he".
I also suggest that the following two Amendments—in page 12, line 29, leave out "who"; and page 12, line 34, leave out from "suzerainty" to the end of the Subsection—might be considered with this Amendment, as they are consequential. These Amendments import the exception which is contained in Section II, Subsection (1 a), of the principal Act, and also the Amendment to that Act of 1941, namely, the exemption of persons who are Dominion subjects and resident in the British Isles. It similarly exempts persons who are employed by the Dominions and are also residents in the British Isles. If Dominion subjects were exempt from conscription during the war, it is not quite clear to us why they should be brought within the scope of this Measure after a qualifying residence in this country of two years. I move this


Amendment to get some elucidation on this point. I would like an assurance from His Majesty's Government that the Dominions authorities have been consulted in this matter before it was included in this Bill. Otherwise, I suggest that there might be an accusation, to put it mildly, of a lack of tact.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that we cannot accept the Amendment. Broadly speaking, the effect of this and the other Amendments is to exempt from liability under the Bill men from any part of the British Commonwealth or Empire or overseas possessions who come to live in Great Britain. As the Bill stands, the position of the men in question is as it has always been under the National Service Act and there has never been any complaint on the part of our Dominions about that. That is, if they come to reside in Great Britain, except for a temporary purpose, or for the purpose of education, they become liable for national service here after being here for two years. There appears to us to be no reason to change that position at all. Such a man who makes his home here can reasonably be expected to take his share in the defence of the country, like the rest of us. Another difficulty of this Amendment, which probably has not been noticed by the hon. and gallant Member is that as it is phrased it would exempt a man born in another part of the Commonwealth, who came to this country in infancy, has lived here ever since and intends to remain here. The change which is proposed is not at all necessary, and we regret that we cannot accept it.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is there not surely the case of trade officials and representatives of one Empire country or another? A man might reside here for perhaps two years and one month and be required back in Sydney in his office, but he would be called upon for a period of a year's service and there would be a further compulsion on him to give part-time service in this country. Are there exceptions which would cover that case?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot speak with legal definiteness, but if the case about which the hon. and gallant Member asks is that of an official of a Dominion or a Colony who is here on official

business, he still remains a national or a subject of his own country, however long he stays. Also people from other parts of the Commonwealth may come here for temporary purposes or for the purpose of education without coming under the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Stanley: I take it that Subsection (3, b) overrides Subsection (3, c). In other words, a national of Australia, for example, might have lived here for more than two years, but by producing evidence that he had been sent to take charge of a London office, it would be accepted that he would at some time return, and he would take advantage of Subsection (3, b).

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 22.—(Application to Scotland.)

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 13, line 12, at the end, to add:
(2) An Order made under the Section (Termination of power to make up civil remuneration) of this Act which relates to Scotland only shall be made by the Secretary of State; and an Order so made which relates to England and Scotland shall be made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State jointly.
The Amendment is consequential on a new Clause put down by the Government relating to the termination of power to make up civil remuneration. That Clause will be dealt with later. It enables an Order relating to Scotland to be made by the Secretary of State or an Order which relates to England and Scotland to be made by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Health jointly. Some of the appropriate authorities for the purpose of local government staffs exercise functions in both countries. This is a drafting Amendment, and the actual terms of the new Clauses to make the real Amendment will be before the Committee later.

Mr. Stanley: I ask for the assurance that this drafting Amendment does not commit us the acceptance of the new Clause which is to follow.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Isaacs indicated dissent.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 23.—(Application of National Service Acts to Isle of Man.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 13, after "that," to insert "any of."
This and the next four Amendments are in connection with the application of the previous Measures to the Isle of Man.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 13, line 16, leave out "any such Order."

In line 16, after "may," insert "by Order in Council."

In line 17, leave out "of the said enactments," and insert "enactment."

In line 18, leave out "enactments," and insert "Acts."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 24.—(Duration of National Service Acts.)

Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, in page 13, line 19, to leave out from the beginning, to the second "the," and to insert:
No person who attains the age of eighteen years on or after.
This is largely a drafting Amendment, bringing this Clause into line with the decisions reached earlier relating to the age of call-up.

The Chairman: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates)—in page 13, line 20, leave out "fifty-four," and insert "fifty-one "—might properly be discussed with this Amendment, if the Committee wishes. Does the hon. Member for Ladywood wish to speak?

Mr. Yates: I take it I am to move my Amendment now?

The Chairman: The hon. Member may do that if and when the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is disposed of.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the great importance of my hon. Friend's Amendment, would it be possible then to have a Division upon it?

The Chairman: Certainly, when the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment has been disposed of.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: May I seek your guidance on one matter, Major Milner? Is it your intention to call the Amendment standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends—in page 13, line 20, leave out from beginning to "except," and insert:
thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine"?

The Chairman: No, I am afraid the hon. Gentleman's Amendment has not been selected. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) is associated with that in the name of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin)—in page 13, line 19, leave out from "Acts," to end of Clause, and insert:
shall continue in force only for such time, and subject to such provisions, as may be specified in an annual Act of Parliament, bringing into force or continuing the same.

Major Legge-Bourke: I have been trying to understand what this Amendment is about. As far as I can make out, it makes complete nonsense of the Clause. Were it to read, "in page 13, line 19, after 'of' insert" the words suggested, the Clause might make sense, but when reading it with the present Amendment as printed on the Order Paper, I do not think that it makes any sense at all.

Mr. Ness Edwards: In order to clear up the matter, I would explain that this Amendment should be taken in connection with the Amendment to be proposed to line 20. The Amendments must be taken together in order to make the Clause read sensibly. As amended the Clause will read:
No person who attains the age of eighteen years on or after the 1st day of January, 1954, shall be liable under the National Service Acts to be called upon to serve in the Armed Forces of the Crown; and accordingly those Acts shall continue in operation only with respect to persons who have attained that age or who have been called up for service under those Acts before that date:
Provided that His Majesty may by Order in Council substitute for the said day such later date as may seem to His Majesty expedient.
The short point is that up to 1st January, 1954, men will be liable to be called up under this Bill. After that date none will be liable to be called up unless the Committee makes other arrangements. Those men who have been called up under the Bill will carry their obligations beyond the date when the Bill comes to an end.

Mr. S. O. Davies: On a point of Order. If these Amendments, which amount to a new Clause, are carried, will that preclude discussion and possible Division on the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) in page 13, line 20? If the present Amendment is now carried, it appears to commit the Committee to 1954.

The Chairman: No. I want to make it clear that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) may be discussed and divided upon.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Yates: I beg to move, in page 13, line 20, to leave out "fifty-four", and to insert "fifty-one".
This is next to the last Clause but it is by no means the least important. In fact, it is fundamental. I feel rather sad that up to the moment we have not been able to make any great impression upon the Government in regard to the general principles of this Bill. I have opposed conscription, but in this Amendment I am asking the Committee to agree that the period of the duration of this Bill should be two years instead of five. When it was first suggested that this Bill should be introduced, the great fear in the minds of my hon. Friends and myself was that for the first time we were introducing into this country a permanent system of peacetime conscription.
It will be well within the recollection of the Committee that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked whether it was in the mind of the Government to make military conscription a permanent part of the life of the country, he replied that it was difficult to give a literal translation of the word "permanent."
I do not ask to see the distant scene, One step enough for me.
Naturally, we had fear, and today we have equal fear about the real intention of this Bill and whether it is to be a permanent Measure. We are justified in those fears because when the Military Training Bill was first introduced by the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain it was a Measure which was not so far-reaching as this. That involved only a six months' period of training and yet Mr. Chamberlain

realised at that time, because of the action of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, that in their minds there was a fear that it would become permanent. That was in 1939. Here we are today asking that this shall continue until 1954.
9.0 p.m.
I would like to quote from Mr. Neville Chamberlain's speech on that occasion. It emphasises the fear in minds then and the fear in our minds today. He said:
I want to conclude by making an appeal to. the party opposite.
That is, to my right hon. Friends:
… I think we fully realise what this word 'compulsion' connotes in their minds. They hate it. They have believed, and I daresay they do believe now, that once you introduce compulsion it is difficult to stop it. It might spread until it affected every aspect of national life.
Later in the same speech he said:
It is a limited Measure which is designed only to meet immediate and temporary needs"—
1939—
It will be framed specially to emphasise its temporary character."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1939; Vol. 346, C. 1351.]
I submit that when Mr. Neville Chamberlain introduced a Measure of that kind the fear that it might be permanent was justified. Today we are considering a much more far-reaching Measure, one which asks in 1947 for conscription to be imposed from 1949 to 1954. Why does the Government insist upon a five-year period? Perhaps they will tell us. At the General Election there was no question about conscription. There was no mandate on this issue. In that pamphlet which we have so often held up in this House, "Let us face the future," there was no reference to military conscription. I suggest to my hon. Friends that so far as our own party is concerned and our own party conference, neither the Labour Party Conference nor the Trades Union Congress has ever passed a resolution in favour of military conscription in time of peace.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to point out that this Debate is confined to the length of the conscription period and is not concerned with the merits or otherwise of conscription?

Mr. Yates: I will endeavour to confine myself to the essentials of this Amend-


ment, Mr. Bowles. I am asking why this should be for five years. After taking office, the Government decided to introduce an interim scheme with a call-up only for two years. Why should we now have a Bill for five years? If I am not out of Order, I suggest that when the last Labour Party Conference discussed the issue whether the present policy of the Government was one to cater for immediate needs, it was made quite clear that what the Government were concerned with was immediate responsibilities.
I am asking tonight whether the Government consider that it is really necessary that we should have a Bill upon the Statute Book imposing conscription for a full five years. I want to suggest why I consider it should only be introduced for two years. Of course, if I could have my way, I would not agree to it at all, for any period, but I do suggest that it is morally indefensible that a Government which came to power as this Government did in 1945 should proclaim that they have the backing of the country in imposing a Measure of peacetime conscription for four years beyond the next General Election. The next General Election is due in 195o, that is, if we go the full constitutional period. May or June, 195o, will normally be the time when the Government should go to the country, and I am asking the Committee to agree to limit this conscription Bill until the January following the time of the next General Election if it is held in June, 1950.
The Government should be able to tell us, in 195o, what progress has been made through the United Nations, for what commitments we are considered to be responsible, and whether, as it is hoped, the situation will be such that it will not be necessary to have conscription at all. At least I think we should be able to see the position clearly. The Foreign Secretary has just returned. We understand. the difficulties of the international situation, but he has told us that things are not so bad, and that, after all, it is expected that there will be an improvement. Is it not reasonable to expect that before the next General Election, or at least by June, 1950, we shall know precisely what our commitments are? At least, I think it is reasonable to expect that we ought to do so, and that at that moment the Government could go to the country, if they felt that conscription

must continue, and put the issue clearly to the people.
I submit that this is a fundamental issue upon which we ought to have a mandate from the country. Though I am not denying the right of the Government to face their immediate responsibilities, I do not think in the circumstances it is necessary to place a Measure upon the Statute Book which extends that responsibility from 1949 until 1954. I want this Government, and our movement, to face the country with completely clean hands, and I believe that I am making a reasonable request in asking that there shall be a limitation of the duration of this Bill. It is a reasonable request, and it is one which I am sure the country will fully appreciate. I disagree entirely with the necessity for this Measure, but of this I am absolutely convinced, that there is no justification whatever for imposing it upon the country for five years, before we even know in firm detail what the requirements of the nation are now or will be within the next few years.
I urge the Government to give the fullest consideration to this matter. I am not moving this Amendment in a frivolous manner. I recognise the Government's responsibilities. I am only asking that they shall take out this figure and face the country in 195o and get a Mandate if they want to go further with it.

Mr. Scollan: In view of the Ruling which you have given on this Amendment, Mr. Bowles, I may be in some difficulty in keeping in Order. It is difficult to support an Amendment that would bring this matter before the nation in the General Election of 1950 without telling that Committee why we want that done. I wonder whether I would be in Order in telling the Committee why this thing should be placed before the people before it is imposed as a permanent institution on the nation? This nation has consistently, in the most dangerous periods of its history, resisted the conscription of its manpower when it was confronted with conscript countries all over the Continent. It becomes difficult to know exactly how to approach the matter in Debate. Would I be in Order in referring to the Second Reading Debate, when I told the House that there was a hint that if we accepted the principle of conscription for the nation, the Government would take out 18 months and give us 12 months? That hint has


proved to be correct. If I am still in Order, I would repeat that the military caste, after every war, has immediately taken control of the destinies of the youth of the nation, as far as they could.

The Temporary Chairman: A decision was taken by the House of Commons upon the Second Reading of the Bill, and it was in favour of conscription until 1954. The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) has moved an Amendment to alter that date. I must, therefore, ask the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) to confine himself to the subject of the Amendment.

Mr. Scollan: I bow to your Ruling.

Mr. Byers: Does the hon. Member include in the military caste of which he spoke those hon. and gallant Members of the Committee who are opposing conscription?

Mr. Scollan: I can only say that the hon. Member is flattering himself if he thinks that he is one of the military caste. The main reason given by the mover of the Amendment why the duration of the Bill should be reduced from 1954 to 1951 is that a General Election is due to take place in 1950. That brings me to a very important point. It is rather amusing that the Minister of Defence, who could not rise in this Committee and say that he had received a mandate and that the mandate was contained in "Let us Face the Future," could yet go to the Cooperative Congress and claim there that there was.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is not amusing.

Mr. Scollan: It is not amusing.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: But the hon. Gentleman said it was.

Mr. Scollan: Yes, it is rather amusing that he is not here to hear it. One of the main reasons why it should end on 1st January, 1951, is obviously because it will be too near the period of the General Election for the matter to be ignored, and, consequently, they will have to explain to the people at that Election what the crisis is now.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Scollan: No, the hon. Gentleman may not. What is the crisis which faces this country at the present moment and which makes it necessary for us to have conscription in peacetime? In a vague and general way we were previously told that the international situation was of such a character that we could not depend upon U.N.O. being a success, and that we needed some kind of intimidating Armed Force behind the Foreign Secretary so that he could negotiate and get good conditions for this country out of the various conferences, international and otherwise. If that is the case—

Mr. Tiffany: Will my hon. Friend allow me—

Mr. Scollan: No, I cannot,

Mr. Tiffany: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Mr. Bowles, for my hon. Friend to misreport a statement made by the Minister of Defence to the Co-operative Party Conference?

The Temporary Chairman: It is up to the hon. Member who follows him in the Debate to correct the hon. Gentleman if necessary.

Mr. Scollan: There are many ways of getting in an interruption on points of Order. The point I was trying to make was that if the Government go to the country in 1950, they' will have to tell the people—since conscription is going to finish on 1st January, 1951—what was the particular crisis that justified them making it a permanent institution on the people of this country in 1947. It is the principle they want; they do not care whether it is a year, six months, or a fortnight.

The Temporary Chairman: The principle of conscription has already been decided.

Mr. Scollan: With respect, Mr. Bowles, they have only got it up to Clause 24; they have still to get the other Clauses. Therefore, I think that I am entitled to point out that the main thing in the Bill is the principle of conscription in peacetime.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot refer to the principle; he can only argue whether the length of service is to be five years or two.

Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. I am not quite sure, Mr. Bowles, whether


you really meant the words you just uttered. Surely the matter under Debate now is not the question of five or two years' service; it is a question of whether for five years or for two years there shall be compulsory service for one year. It is quite a different point.

The Temporary Chairman: Surely, the point is that the Bill, which has passed its Second Reading, provides that compulsory military service should continue until 1954, and the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) seeks to reduce the period by three years.

Mr. Scollan: I will try to keep within your Ruling, Mr. Bowles. The idea of conscription is accepted today because it was necessary in wartime. One of the most aggravating things about the whole of the discussion on the Bill is that one no sooner draws attention to the objections to the principle in peacetime, than somebody dubs one as a pacifist. I am not, and never was, a pacifist, but, at the same time, I do not see why this should be shoved on for another four years after the next opportunity for the people to say whether they want it or not. Therefore, I cannot see why the Government cannot accept the Amendment. Obviously, if they are going to say that conscription is necessary to carry them over the crisis, they will have to tell us, some time or other, what is this crisis. What are these commitments, all these things that we are told about in a vague, nebulous sort of way? Is there somebody round the corner waiting to pounce on us? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Front Bench."] I do not know if anybody on the Front Bench would pounce, but I have seen quite a lot of it on the second bench. I ask the Government to consider the fact that one of the cardinal principles of the Labour Party is that the people should be consulted before a change of this character takes place.

Mr. Nally: ; If this Amendment is not accepted, it will mean that this Committee, by rejecting it, will have decided that 10 and II year olds will, in due course, be conscripted into His Majesty's Forces. The argument that has been used is this, that where we are making a serious decision without precedent in our national life, and that decision is being made by a new Government of a different kind, it is

right and proper that that Government:, introducing this new principle into Britain's peacetime life—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member has heard me rule before that there can be no discussion on the merits of conscription. The only argument permissible at the moment is whether it is to be for two years or five years.

Mr. Nally: With respect, I submit that if you had allowed me to continue to the end of my sentence I was not going to challenge the merits of conscription at all. I was about to say that at least the length of it ought to be subject to the decision of the next General Election. I really did mean to say that, and I am not now attempting to evade your Ruling. I know we are not to discuss the merits of conscription. Clearly, this Amendment would place the lifetime of conscription roughly within the lifetime of this Government. It would enable the country itself to pass some judgment, either on the merits of the case—which I should be out of Order in discussing—or upon the length of it. I cannot see why it is essential for the Government to have this particular period of time. Why have they said 1954? Why not 1955? If there is a case to be made out—and we are entitled to have it made out—for 1954, the person who makes out that case must demonstrate why 1954 is better than 1955 or 1956; and he must demonstrate also that there are insuperable difficulties in the way of accepting our Amendment.
Although the Committee have accepted the principle of conscription, I hope that those who believe that these major changes in our national life should not be carried through without the utmost care taken to submit them, in the fullest possible way, to the people as a whole will accept our argument that it is wrong for this Government to embody such a period in a Measure of this kind, and to carry its life to 1954, which is three and a half or four years beyond the elected period of this Parliament. We ask from the Front Bench a quite specific and clear justification for the date of 1954. We are not to be put off by vague assertions that it helps administratively, and that any Government which succeeds this will be assisted by the date of 1954. We want the facts upon which that decision is based. We want the complete case


against 1951, and we want complete justification for 1954. Unless we get those answers we shall go into the Lobby against the Government, and I hope very many other hon. Members will also.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I should like to reinforce the argument that this Bill makes a great change in the constitutional position. It makes the change in the constitutional position not immediately, but in 1949, when no one knows what the situation will be. The Amendment puts forward the real and sensible situation. If there is to be a change, what justification can there be for this date of 1954 in regard to a position about which we shall not know until 1949? In that problematical position the speculative two years is far preferable, and is far more justifiable than the five years proposed in this Bill. For that reason, I hope the Government will find it possible to accept the Amendment.

Mr. John Paton: I had not proposed to intervene in this Debate at all. I have been tempted to speak because of the nature of the Amendment and of the arguments by which it has been supported. I voted against conscription on the Address, and I voted against it again on the Second Reading of this Bill. I did that on two occasions, although I am not a pacifist and never have been one. I did it on general grounds which to me seemed good. But I cannot possibly sit silent and abstain from voting on an issue of this kind. I am really astonished at the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) and the lion. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) supporting the Amendment in the way they have done, or putting it down at all. Both those hon. Members, as is the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. H. Morris), are opposed to conscription in principle. They do not want it. They do not want it for five years, and they do not want it for two. Is it possible for anyone who opposes conscription in principle to propose to this Committee that we can accept it for only two years? That seems to me an utterly illogical position to try to sustain, and I am surprised at the arguments used to support it.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Yates: It is perfectly true that we have opposed conscription, but the House

has accepted it, and I have no alternative but to try to reduce the period.

Mr. Paton: If one cannot possibly touch a thing so evil, one cannot buy it in small packets. This Amendment is really a wrecking Amendment.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: On a point of Order. Upon this Clause, there is no way of challenging conscription under your own Ruling, Mr. Bowles—except by amendment of the proposed period.

The Temporary Chairman: I have accepted the Amendment, and so I do not regard it as a wrecking Amendment.

Mr. Paton: Of course, an hon. Member can oppose the Clause. But I said that this was a wrecking Amendment—and that, is in fact, what it is—

Mr. Nally: On a point of Order. You said from that Chair, Mr. Bowles, a few moments ago, that you did not regard this as a wrecking Amendment, for otherwise you would not have called it. We now have an assertion from my hon. Friend that it is a wrecking Amendment. Is that in Order, after you have stated quite specifically that you do not regard it as a wrecking Amendment?

The Temporary Chairman: The position is perfectly clear. I have accepted the Amendment because I do not regard it as a wrecking one, at all; but the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) is perfectly entitled to describe it as a wrecking Amendment if he thinks it is.

Mr. Paton: I propose to say why I applied that term to it. It is because I believe it is a wrecking Amendment that I choose to intervene for the first time in 24 hours, after listening to, and exercising great restraint in, the Debates all last night. The reason why I say that is that, whatever one may think of the Government's plans as laid down in this Bill, at least, they are logically constructive. They have a serious meaning. It has been explained over and over again, in this Debate and in the several Debates on the Bill, that there is a specific reason for the period that is proposed—that it is quite impossible to have this Bill at all, and the machinery of conscription that is proposed, unless we also have an adequate period in which it is to operate. I should have thought that that was now understood by everybody in the Committee.


Because, quite clearly, this attempt to limit the Bill to two years completely and wholly destroys the Bill and its purpose, I call it a wrecking Amendment. I oppose conscription root and branch, but I do not propose by this sort of thing, and this sort of completely inconsistent tactics, to attempt to destroy the Bill.

Mr. Sorensen: I and my colleagues have not the slightest desire to obstruct the passage of this Bill. Although I speak for myself, of course, I think that a few words may be expressed as indicating my own point of view and that of my hon. Friends. I cannot understand the remarks of the last hon. Member who spoke, who seemed to suggest that it was a case of all or nothing. I cannot understand that, especially in view of the fact that the hon. Member is a well-known advocate of the abolition of capital punishment who, on more than one occasion, has tried with others to put a limit to that particular sentence. Every one of us, in this party or the party opposite, can, if he likes, associate with others, because we take the lesser of two evils, and, therefore, I cannot see why we cannot object to the length of time of a principle while realising that the principle has been sanctioned by the House, even though we would prefer that that principle was not in operation. I think it is fairly clear that the length of time in the Bill is largely determined by the reason for the introduction of conscription, and that reason varies according to different sections of the party in power. There is a minority who believe that conscription is the best way of rationing out the respnsibilities of the people of this country, and there is another section which feels that, for some years ahead, the circumstances of the world and our own commitments—

The Temporary Chairman: I am very sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is out of Order. He must either say that he is in favour of five years or two years, or, as another hon. Gentleman has said, the people of the country should be consulted before the decision is taken nearer 1950.

Mr. Sorensen: I think if you had listened to the end of my sentence, Mr. Bowles, you might have given me permission to continue with the point I was making. If you will give me a moment's latitude, may I say this? The length of time of conscription, I say, was deter-

mined by the reason for the introduction of conscription, and, therefore, the second reason which I was about to adduce was that, if the country requires conscription for a certain period of time, and there is perhaps an adequate reason for extending conscription for another two or three years, it does not follow that it will have the same justification. There will be new, and, we hope, improved conditions in the world, and we trust that there will be less tension between the Powers, and that is a reason which I would submit to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. While I can see a reason for extending conscription for a certain period of time, there is no justification for continuing it beyond that time, because the situation should be reconsidered in the light of the conditions which then exist, and which we all hope will be an improvement on the present situation. I hope that this Amendment will receive consideration.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: The point of view of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) is one with which, at first glance, I have considerable sympathy because those of us who opposed peacetime conscription in principle, are now faced with a Bill which has been accepted in principle by the House of Commons and by this Committee. We now have a choice to make. The choice before us is in this Clause, which says that the Bill shall cease to have effect in 1954. The hon. Member for Norwich said that he would vote against the Clause—

Mr. Paton: I think the hon. Member misunderstood. I was challenged as to what should be done to express opposition to it other than by voting for this Amendment, and I suggested it could be done by voting against the Clause standing part.

Mr. Roberts: I shall deal with that. The hon. Gentleman suggested that opposition could be expressed by voting against the Motion that the Clause stand part, but this Clause limits the operation of the Bill and, if one voted against the Clause, then logically the result of the vote would be that one was prepared to commit the country indefinitely without a time limit to the continuance of this provision. Do we accept the limitation in the Clause that conscription shall cease to have effect in 1954? Faced with that choice, we say


that if the House of Commons is imposing conscription, and if we regard it as an evil thing, then we must do all we can to restrict its scope and limit the term of its operation. We do not regard it as desirable or necessary for the country to be committed to conscription indefinitely, and in those circumstances it is perfectly logical for us to take the line, at this stage in the Committee, that we must support this Amendment which will restrict the operation of this evil thing to two years.
It has been argued that the purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the matter of conscription in peacetime will be an issue at the next General Election, and that is reasonable. Nothing could be more desirable than that the country should have an opportunity of discussing it and voting on it at the next General Election. I believe that were this an issue at the General Election, it would dwarf every other issue. There is only one weakness in the argument, and that is to assume that the next General Election may not be held until shortly before 1951. That may be so or that may not be so. It is for that reason that my hon. Friends and I put down an Amendment to limit the operation of the Bill to one year, because we do not think that Parliament should grant these powers except for one year. That Amendment would have the effect of making conscription an issue whenever the General Election is held.
There is one further argument I wish to adduce in support of this Amendment. In yesterday's Debate the Minister of Defence said that he was defending the first conscription Measure of its kind ever introduced in "a reasonably normal peacetime period." That means that this Bill is not introduced by the Minister of Defence as a Measure in time of emergency but that he accepts this as a reasonably normal peacetime period. Have we any reason to believe that world relations will have deteriorated so far that it will be necessary to prolong this Measure until 1954? In view of those words I submit that it is the duty of this Committee to limit the term of compulsory military service as rigidly as possible. For that reason I support the Amendment.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I would not have thought it necessary to intervene, but for

the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton). Apart from my hon. Friend there seems to be a complete silence on the part of those who are presumably going to vote against the Amendment. I wonder why? Let me examine the argument of the only Member of the Committee who has so far attempted to defend the Government's position. He says the first objection is that it would be a wrecking Amendment. By that I take it he means that if the Amendment were passed the Bill would prove unworkable, or useless. I do not admit that for a moment, but let us suppose for the sake of argument that he is right and that if we were to pass this Amendment the Bill would be rendered unworkable or useless—what objection has my hon. Friend to that?

Mr. Paton: Mr. Paton rose—

Mr. Silverman: I will give way in a moment. I want to finish one point first, and then I will willingly give way. My hon. Friend told the Committee quite frankly that he was against this Bill. He said that he voted against it before ever it was introduced. As soon as it was foreshadowed in the Address from the Throne he voted and, I think, spoke in favour of the Amendment to the Address. He told us again that he voted against the Second Reading. He is against this Bill, as much against it as I am against it. Therefore, if an Amendment were proposed the success of which would have the effect of rendering the Bill useless and unworkable, he ought to vote for that Amendment tonight.

Mr. Paton: My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) with his usual courage has intervened in this Debate although he heard neither the mover's speech nor the seconder's speech, to which I replied. Had he been here to hear those speeches, he would understand why I took that line.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. I certainly did not hear the speech of the mover of the Amendment, but I think I know what was in it. I heard other hon. Members' speeches and I certainly heard my hon. Friend's speech. He said in his speech quite clearly that he was against this Amendment because if we passed the Amendment a Bill which he is against anyway would


be rendered useless and unworkable. Here is a man who is against a thing, but refuses to vote for something which renders the thing he is against useless and unworkable. It is an astonishing position for any hon. Member to be in.

Mr. Paton: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne completely misunderstands the nature of the argument I was using. I was attacking those who were sponsoring the Amendment because I believed they were indulging in wrecking tactics which were not good for them and the position they occupy.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend was a Member of this House before I was and his knowledge and experience are greater than mine. [An HON. MEMBER: "He was not"] If I am wrong he will correct it, but I think he was here before I was first elected in 1935.

Mr. Paton: Mr. Paton indicated dissent.

Mr. Silverman: Then I need not be as humble as I intended to be. Out of the depths of my longer experience I would say to my hon. Friend that there is nothing wrong with moving an Amendment to a Bill which one is opposing, because the effect of this Amendment would be to give one one's way. There is nothing unparliamentary about it, and certainly there is nothing wrong about it. That is one of the reasons I am in favour of the Amendment, because I think if I had my way it would not be worth the Government's while having a conscription Bill at all for two years. That, therefore, is a very good argument in favour of the Bill.
Let us come to the second point. I suppose there is no Member of this Committee and certainly there is no Member on this side who would not agree with this proposition that in a democratic country, if it is proposed to alter the fundamental constitutional life of the land, it should not be done, unless it is impracticable to do otherwise, without first submitting it to the electorate and getting a mandate for what is being done. I do not think that anyone on the Government side of the Committee will dissent from that view. The Government case is that in the circumstances that have arisen they had no option but to do it without consulting the people. Certainly it is not in "Let us Face the Future," and the Government have always been very careful in their

courageous far-reaching legislation never to go beyond what they thought was advisable or for which they had a mandate in the document to which I have referred, and on which they were elected, except in this one instance. I do them the justice of admitting at once that they would not have departed from that democratic principle except that they were convinced that in the circumstances they had no option but to do it. I do not agree with them but I honestly concede that they—

Mr. William Ross: Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock) rose—

Mr. Silverman: Let me finish my sentence. As I was saying, I do not agree with them in that but I honestly concede that that is their justification, and I am sure they would not claim any other for having voted a Bill which not only fundamentally alters the constitution of our country, but which goes against everything for which this Party has stood.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member must not discuss the merits of this question, but he must confine himself to whether the Bill should apply for two years or five.

Mr. Silverman: I fully appreciate that and I hope that I am not attempting to discuss the merits. I only said that for this Government even more than any other to do this without electoral sanction could only be justified on the grounds of necessity. I do not argue the ncessity but I concede that that is their belief.

Mr. Ross: I want to remind the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) that "Let us Face the Future," was written and the General Election was fought before the war was ended.

Mr. Silverman: I concede that most of it was written before the war was ended, but the General Election was fought when the European war was over. I do not know what the relevance of that is or what difference it makes. I concede that the Government did not believe that it would be necessary when they fought the Election to introduce a Bill like this, and, therefore, they did not ask for a mandate.
They have introduced this only because circumstances have not changed as rapidly as they hoped. That brings me back


directly to the terms of this Amendment, because whatever excuse there is for bringing in the Bill, as they did without a mandate from the electorate, which they could not have obtained and which they did not seek, there can be no excuse for continuing it beyond the time of the next election without first submitting it to the electors.

Mr. McKie: What Government has ever done that with any Bill?

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend must remember that we have a new type of Government now. I know that former Governments proceeded on quite different principles, but we reject those principles. It is not only this party that never consulted the electorate about conscription; neither did the Tories, the Liberals or anybody else consult the people about conscription. I quite agree that the Liberals had a very good reason. They had no intention of introducing it.

Mr. Clement Davies: The hon. Gentleman is discussing whether any Government should bring in a great constitutional change without consulting the people. I would point out that in 1910, before the change in regard to another place, we did go to the country and get a mandate.

Mr. Silverman: My right hon. and learned Friend is unusually indignant. I was making no attack. I think that the record of the Liberal Party on this point, if on no other, is perfectly clean.

Mr. H. Strauss: Is not the hon. Gentleman's point about the mandate quite as much an objection to the Amendment as to the Clause? There is no earthly reason, if the Government think they should have a mandate, why they should not go to the country tomorrow.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is the very last hon. Member who ought to attack an argument like that. I heard him only this afternoon, and I have heard him on many previous occasions, plead most eloquently and forcefully the argument for democracy. He is against regulations with a negative Prayer against them. He does not think that that is democratic. He does not like to see this Bill which contains these provisions, and he voted against the provisions because they do not give the direct positive.

Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. Are we to be allowed to discuss again the question about the negative Resolution?

The Temporary Chairman: That must not be discussed and the hon. Member knows it.

Mr. Silverman: I am not discussing it at all.

The Temporary Chairman: I think the Committee will agree that we cannot go into a discussion on democracy and that this point about negative Resolutions has been made on previous Amendments. The hon. Gentleman should relate his remarks to the Amendment now under discussion.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) was anxious to see that the rights of Parliament are protected. He ought to be more anxious to see that the rights of the electorate are protected. That is the point I am making. I was using the previous point about positive and negative resolutions, not because I want to discuss their merits but because I would have expected that hon. Members who are anxious about democratic principles being safeguarded so that Parliament can have a direct sanction for Bills of this kind, ought in consistency to say that the argument is an a fortiori argument so far as the electorate is concerned. I expect those Gentlemen to vote with us for this Amendment. I do not want to detain the Committee much longer—[Interruption.] I can quite understand that those who have uneasy consciences about the matter want me to sit down even quicker than I intend to do.
Whatever may be true of the Tories and the Liberals, as soon as my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side get the opportunity of submitting this, I think, great deterioration of our system—though they think this great reform, but whichever it is—to the electorate for a mandate for or against it, they ought to take it and ought not to seek to prolong the operation of this Measure one day longer than they have the opportunity of consulting the people of this country about it.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I do not propose to detain the Committee for any length of time because it would appear that the


Amendment submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) is an exceedingly narrow one. It does not affect at all the general principle in the Bill which has already been approved by the House; it merely argues that its period of operation should be reduced from five years to two. The short answer to that Amendment, in the first place, is that it would be quite impossible for the Government to accept it because it would not provide us with the number of reservists that we require for the planning that has to be done—and has to be done now. In the second place, reference has been made to the date proposed by my hon. Friend when the Bill should cease to be operative because it would then be near to the date of a General Election, and something has been said about the unwisdom of my party and the Government having brought this Measure in without a previous mandate from the electorate.
Let me say first of all, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that the programme we put to the electorate was put in wartime with a pledge to prosecute the war against Japan to the full until final victory had come. There was also the page in "Let us face the future" which, in referring to the general international question, told the electorate that military insecurity was a menace to peace. That was largely the background in which the Labour Party sought the electorate's sufferages upon this kind of issue, although I agree that the specific issue of conscription as such was not put for the mandate of the people while the war was still being carried on.

Mr. Byers: On a point of Order. I thought you ruled, Mr. Bowles, that we were not to discuss the principle of conscription. We believe that this country should be militarily strong and so does the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that on this we were not to discuss the principle of conscription. Conscription is a method. Hon. Members opposite thinks it makes the country strong. We think it makes the country weak. Surely that cannot be argued on this Amendment?

The Temporary Chairman: The issue of conscription is not the issue here. The right hon. Gentleman was in Order in that the argument about fixing the period at

two years, namely until 1951, was that it would make it very close to the next time when this Government and other parties in this House will have an opportunity of going to the electorate.

Mr. Alexander: I need only add one thing. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said that the Government did not claim that they had a special mandate from the electorate when they brought this thing in. That is right. The facts are quite clear. We had to bring it in because the previous authority of the House extending the call-up of national service men would come to an end in 1948 and we would be left with a period in which we had to meet our immediate commitments and plan for the subsequent future while we were getting the world more safe and the proper organisation of U.N.O. proceeding. Therefore, we had to bring in the Measure now in order to give proper notice and organisation to take the place or those men who will have finished with the Services at the end of 1948. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, because it would destroy the whole basis of the planning and the commitments on which the Bill is based and for the principles of which we had the approval of the House on Second Reading.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I hope that the Committee will regard this Amendment as the most important put forward since the Second Reading of the Measure, and those who take that view will go into the Lobby in support of it. I cannot understand the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence; and if he does not mind my saying so, I think I am as capable of interpreting Labour policy as he is. What is this plan he talks about and what are our commitments? We have never been told what our military commitments are. Will he tell us what special merit there is in 1954 as against 1951? How comes it about that the Government want to extend conscription for 10 years after the end of the war? We are reminded almost every week that our troops are coming out of India, out of Egypt, out of Burma, and ultimately, I suppose, they will come out of Germany, Italy and Austria, too. [HON. MEMBERS: "And Palestine."] I suppose we shall have to come out of Palestine some day. In any case we


cannot police the world, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Are we to assume that the whole world has got to be straightened out before we abolish conscription in this country? Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: Do I understand him to say that we are to continue conscription, until we have developed the atomic bomb? I think we are entitled to ask that question. I would like to ask another question. Have we entered into any commitments at all with the American Government to pass this Bill? Then I would like to ask something else. What are our commitments to U.N.O.? They will not tell us; there is something very ominous and menacing in some of the suggestions in Government speeches on this issue. So far as I understand it, it is; "We will carry on with the voluntary system to safeguard the interests of our country and Empire, but in order to provide our quota for U.N.O. we must in addition impose conscription on our people until 1954."
Let the Committee understand something else—this is not only until 1954, conscription is to continue beyond 1954 by Order in Council. As stated, this is the most important Amendment we have put forward, and I hope we shall rally a goodly number in the Division on our side. Let me add, as one who has been in this House almost as long as anybody, I believe that the fate of this Government may well be in the balance on this Bill. In any event, the fate of the Labour Movement outside is in this Bill. When the Tories support the Government on Measure like this, they are treading on very dangerous ground. Let me say finally, therefore, that we attach great importance to this Amendment, because I for one, who have fought as many Elections as anybody—and have not lost one yet, by the way—do not want the Labour Party to go to the next General Election with the fact against us that we have fastened military conscription on our people for good. I want us to say to the electorate: "If a future Government care to continue conscription, let them do it, but the Labour Party, at any rate, will face the country with clean hands in this matter."

Mr. Byers: I think it would be a mistake for the Committee to part with this Amendment without a further explanation

from the Minister of Defence after the very feeble explanation he gave. This is a constitutional matter and it has nothing to do with conscription at all. The point is, Are we prepared to take this matter to the country at the next General Election or not? That is why the date 1951 has been decided upon. The Minister's answer was that we could not do that because it would weaken the country, and the reason why it would weaken the country is that we should not get the reserves that we required. I think that I have not misinterpreted the argument that the Minister put up at that Box. I want to ask the Minister of Defence, What difference is there likely to be in 1951 in our reserve strength, under the Amendment, or under the Bill as it stands? What difference? Answer. There is no answer to it, because there is no difference. The Minister of Defence now says that there would be a difference. He gave an indication that there was a difference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Can we have an answer? This is the crux of the Amendment. My point is that the Amendment would make no difference to the reserves. The Bill now says that the National Service Acts
shall cease to have effect on the first day of January, 1954.
For that date it is proposed to substitute "1951." The Bill goes on to add:
except as respects any liability thereby imposed on any person before that date.
In other words the reserve commitments go on. There is no difference except that we limit the application of the Bill to two age groups instead of to five age groups. We should go to the country in 1950 and ask whether the people want to go on with it. It makes no difference at all to the reserve strength of the country. Will the Minister deny it? I give him the chance to do so.

Mr. Alexander: Mr. Alexander rose—

The Temporary Chairman: I would point out to the hon. Member that he cannot expect the Minister to give him an answer unless he resumes his seat and gives way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Byers: I know that the Minister of Defence is tired, but one cannot always tell for what reason he is nodding his head at any particular moment. I did not know that he was waiting for me to give way. This is an important matter.


The Amendment is not a pacifist Amendment in any way at all.

Mr. Alexander: Let me repeat what I said before. I said that we have to have a plan, and that to limit this Bill to two years of operation only would provide ultimately for a total rather less than, and certainly not more than 400,000 reserves. We have planned on a much bigger basis of reserves than that.

Mr. Byers: The Minister of Defence must riot mislead the Committee on this matter.

Mr. Alexander: I am not.

Mr. Byers: Yes, he is doing so, by the words which he used. What he tried to tell the Committee by the way in which he dealt with the Amendment was that we cannot stop conscription in 1951 because we should have no reserves coming into the Forces between 1951 and 1954. That is how the right hon. Gentleman gets the difference between 1,100,000 and 400,000. That is wrong, and that is misleading the Committee. We have to compare like with like. We have to compare the situation in 1951 under the Amendment with the situation under the Bill, and that will be the same; or we have to compare the situation in 1954 under the Amendment, which depends entirely upon the mandate the Government receive from the people—if they get a mandate from the people—

Mr. Alexander: We do not seem to be losing any by-elections.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Byers: I am not in the least challenging that.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the candidate at the Jarrow by-election made it perfectly clear that he was against conscription?

Mr. Byers: I was not aware of that. I was wondering why the majority—

The Temporary Chairman: We are not discussing the Jarrow by-election, but whether conscription should go on until 1954, or should stop in 1951. The hon. Gentleman has stated that whether it stops in 1951 or goes on till 1954 will make no difference in the number of reserves.

Mr. Byers: I apologise, Mr. Bowles. I was drawn away by the Minister's intervention. The Minister should not mislead the Committee on this matter. He knows just as well as I do that the position of reserves and the total number of people in the Forces in 1951 will be exactly the same under this Amendment as it will under the Bill. That has not been denied, and the Minister cannot deny it. The real point of this Amendment is whether the matter should be taken to the country at the next election, and whether the Government should come back with a mandate. On that constitutional point I agree with hon. Members of the party above the Gangway. Are they so kern to get this conscription Measure that they are not prepared to put it before the country at the next election?

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: I think that every Member of my party is committed to the principle of conscription, as opposed to Members of the hon. Gentleman's party who are against it. I do not think that that relieves the party above the Gangway of putting that straight to the people of the country at the next election. That is the point of this Amendment. It makes no difference to the strength of our reserves in 1951. The point is the constitutional question. Are they prepared to put it to the country, or are they frightened to do so?

The Temporary Chairman: The Temporary Chairman rose—

Mr. C. Williams: Mr. C. Williams rose—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman did not catch my eye. Does he wish to address the Committee?

Mr. C. Williams: I have always stood up for that purpose, Mr. Bowles. I was very interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). He said two things which I thought were immensely sensible. In the first place, and as far as this Amendment is concerned, he said that it was deserving of support, because, if the period was reduced by three years, it would then render a Bill which we dislike—

Mr. S. Silverman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I would point out that I expressly said that I did not accept that view. I added that if I had accepted that view it would only have made me all the more determined to get this Amendment carried, if I could.

Mr. C. Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his correction, although I do not think that it alters the situation very much. However, he drew to my mind the fact that the intention of this Amendment was to reduce the value of the Bill, and that seemed to me to be a good reason for supporting the Amendment. He then said something which I thought was very interesting. He said this was a new type of Government. Indeed, it is a new type of Government. An Amendment has been moved striking at the root of the proposal in the Bill; the Government have had one supporter from their Front Bench, so far as I know, and a large number of their own closest supporters have been supporting the Amendment. That seems to be a very curious position, and I thought it was worth commenting on it. There have been few other signs, except of incompetence—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that he cannot base his speech on the obiter dicta of other hon. Members. He must confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. C. Williams: No, I would not use the obiter dicta of other hon. Members as the basis of my speech. I am basing my speech on the proposal to reduce the period from 1954 to 1951. The object of my speech was to draw the attention of yourself, Mr. Bowles, and of the Committee to the fact that we have this very interesting position: This is an Amendment which would undoubtedly have a wreck-

ing effect, or a near wrecking effect, on the Bill because, as the Minister of Defence has said, we would not be able to build up the reserves. If I support the Government in the Lobby, I will do so for this reason; I was returned for the purpose, among other things, of building up, in connection with any party which might be in power, the defences of this country in such a way that we might defend this country and be effective in carrying out the work of the United Nations. We have had the word of the Minister of Defence—

Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order. What has this argument got to do with the proposal to reduce the period from 1954 to 1951? It has nothing at all to do with the Amendment.

Mr. C. Williams: I am seriously trying to keep very much to the point of the Amendment, and very much to what the Minister of Defence said. He appealed to his own supporters—not to us—and said the longer period was necessary from the point of view of defence and of U.N.O. I am saying that if I vote on this Amendment, I shall vote for the longer term, because I do not see how otherwise it is possible either to defend our own country or to enable our country to play its part in U.N.O., and that seems to me to be one of the main objects of this Bill.

Question put, "That fifty-four 'stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes. 36.

Division No. 198.]
AYES.
[10.25 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bower, N.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Crowder, Capt. John E.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G
Cuthbert, W. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V,
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Daines, P


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Amory, D. Heathcote
Burke, W. A.
Delargy, H. J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Carson, E
Diamond, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Digby, S. W.


Awbery, S. S.
Challen, C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Champion, A. J.
Donovan, T.


Baird, J.
Channon, H.
Drewe, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Chater, D.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Balfour, A.
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Barton, C.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Clitherow, Dr. R.
Durbin, E. F. M.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Cobb, F. A.
Duthie, W. S.


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Colman, Miss G. M
Dye, S.


Bennett, Sir P.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Beswick, F.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Cook, T. F.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Bing, G. H. C.
Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Binns, J.
Corvedale, Viscount
Erroll, F. J.


Blyton, W. R.
Crawley, A.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Boardman, H.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)




Ewart, R.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Farthing, W. J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Ropner, Col. L


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Fool, M. M
Linstead, H. N.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Lipson, D. L.
Segal, Dr. S.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Shackleton, E. A. A


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Sharp, Granville


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
McAdam, W
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
McAllister, G.
Shawcross, Rt. bin. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
McEntee, V. La T.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Gibson, C. W
Mack, J. D.
Skeffington, A. M.


Gilzean, A.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Gooch, E. G.
McKinlay, A. S.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Cordon-Walker, P. C.
McLeavy, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Steele, T.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Grimston, R. V
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Gunter, R. J
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Guy, W. H.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Studholme, H. G.


Hall, W. G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Marquand, H. A.
Swingler, S.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hardy, E. A
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Testing, William


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Mellor, Sir J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Houghton, S, G.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F


Hewitson, Captain M.
Mort, D. L.
Thorne, Ernest


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Tiffany, S.


Hobson, C. R.
Moyle, A.
Titterington, M. F


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wadsworth, G


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Walkden, E.


Howard, Hon. A
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Walker-Smith, D.


Hubbard, T.
Nutting, Anthony
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oldfield, W. H
Warbey W. N.


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Oliver, G. H.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L
Weitzman, D


Irving, W. J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Palmer, A. M. F
West, D. G.


Janner, B.
Pargiter, G. A
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Jay, D. P. T.
Parker, J.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pearson, A.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Pearl, Capt. T. F.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Pickthorn, K.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Keenan, W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Kenyon, C.
Prescott, Stanley
Williams, J L. (Kelvingrove)


Kirby, B. V.
Price, M. Philips
Willis, E


Langford-Holt, J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Proctor, W. T.
Wise, Major F. J


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Woods, G. S.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Ranger, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Leonard, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Zilliacus, K.


Leslie, J. R.
Rhodes, H.



Lever, N. H.
Robens, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Levy, B. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Mr. Simmons and




Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Alpass, J. H.
Goodrich, H. E.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Ayles, W. H.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bowen, R.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Longden, F.
Shurmer, P.


Byers, Frank
McGhee, H. G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Cooks, F. S.
McGovern, J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Collins, V. J.
Manning, Mrs. L, (Epping)
Skinnard, F. W.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Morley, R.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wilkins, W. A


Dodds, N. N.
Nally, W.



Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Piratin, P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Rankin, J.
Mr. Yates and Mr. Scotlan

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: On a point of Order. Would it be possible for the lights to be switched on in the Division Lobby while Divisions are being taken, in order that hon. Members may be able to see with whom they are consorting?

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think this is a point of Order, but I will pass on the request to the authorities.

Mr. Scollan: Could you also, Mr. Bowles, see about hon. Members opposite getting, some mental light?
Amendment made: In page 13, line 20, leave out from "fifty-four," to "before," in line 21, and insert:
shall be liable under the National Service Acts to be called upon to serve in the armed forces of the Crown; and accordingly those Acts shall continue in operation only with respect to persons who have attained that age or who have been called up for service under those Acts."—[Mr. Isaacs.]

Mr. Ayles: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out lines 23 to 25.
The short argument for this Amendment is that there is always a tendency for Governments to gather to themselves more and more power, and the only way by which they can be curbed in a Parliamentary State is by full Parliamentary Debate. An Order in Council does not prevent Parliamentary Debate, but it can, possibly, prevent Parliamentary amendment. This Bill, when it becomes an Act, will remain on the Statute Book until 1954, which means that we shall have another six years' experience of its operation. I do not think that, in a rapidly changing world, we can expect conditions to be the same in 1954 as they are today. We shall undoubtedly have a great deal of experience of the effect of this Bill on the young men of 18 years, and also its effect on industry, apart from a great deal of experience with regard to the Armed Forces. We do not know exactly what the military situation will be. In these circumstances, there is only one thing which a democratic Government can do, and that is, instead of ramming Acts on to the Statute Book by sheer brute force, to introduce a new Bill framed in the light of the experience of the six intervening years. I hope I shall get the support of the Committee for the elimination of these three lines which establish the continuance of this Bill, as an Act, by means of Order in Council.

Mr. Alexander: The effect of this Amendment would be to prevent the scheme for compulsory national service being continued beyond the end of 1953, unless an entirely fresh Act was passed for the purpose. The Government might have introduced legislation in a completely permanent form, or on a basis which would have required an Order in Council to terminate the powers in the Bill. But we were very sensible in saying that the need for compulsory national service in peacetime should come under review by Parliament at the end of what we consider a reasonable time. To meet these conflicting points of view, Clause 24 was devised. The provision in that Clause is admittedly in the nature of a compromise. On the one hand, it provides that without positive action the National Service Act shall come to an end on 1st January, 1954. On the other hand, it provides for the positive action to be taken by means of an Order in Council, and safeguards Parliamentary control by the requirement that any Order in Council under this Clause shall require an affirmative Resolution by both Houses of Parliament. The purpose of that proviso is, while reserving full Parliamentary control to make it unnecessary to introduce fresh legislation if circumstances at that time necessitate the maintenance of the scheme. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles) that the procedure of an Order in Council which will require an affirmative Resolution, would not give adequate Parliamentary debate on a major issue of that kind.

Mr. Ayles: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to state that I said nothing of the kind? I said that it would not admit of effective amendment, which is quite different.

Mr. Alexander: I should say that one would be able to put down a very effective Amendment to an affirmative Resolution, tabled by the Government for the passing of an Order in Council.

Sir J. Mellor: Does the right hon. Gentleman insist that it is possible for an hon. Member of this House to put down an Amendment to an affirmative Resolution?

Mr. Alexander: Hon. Members can certainly exert a tremendous amount of pressure on an affirmative Resolution, and in the course of Debate on such a


Resolution can bring very effective representations to bear upon the Government.

Mr. S. Silverman: What the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting a moment ago was that you can in some way or other amend this Bill, by amending an Order in Council under this Clause. I am sure that he did not mean that.. The only Amendment which could be put down to an Order in Council would be about the date, or the period, or something of that character. You could not amend the Bill.

Mr. Alexander: I think probably that is right.—[Interruption.] I do not think that there is any necessity for rude interruption from the hon. Member opposite who seems to think that he is the only hon. Member with Parliamentary experience in the House. I probably dealt with these Resolutions and Orders in Council in the House before the hon. Member ever entered the place; and I have probably carried more Prayers to debate in the House about that kind of thing than he has ever done. I ask him not to make such rude interjectory remarks. We are unable to accept the Amendment because we think we have taken all proper precautions to see that Parliament remains master in this matter. It is essential, under the Bill, for an affirmative Resolution to b put down for the approval of an Order in Council, and we think that the interests of Parliament and of the nation are adequately protected.

10.45 p.m.

Sir J. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman has not at all answered the point, on the desirability of being able to amend. He started his speech under the impression, apparently, that an affirmative Resolution could be amended. It does seem to me to be an affront to the Committee when a Minister of the right hon. Gentleman's rank comes to it with such a ridiculous misconception. I really think it would be a good thing if we could now have an answer from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General on the point. The answer we have had from the Minister is completely worthless. Perhaps the Attorney-General would be prepared to answer the Amendment which was moved in very reasonable terms by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles) and which has considerable support in all quarters of the Committee.

Mr. Hogg: Before the Attorney-General replies I should like to say that I thought my hon. Friend underestimated the cunning and cleverness of the Minister of Defence. It is perfectly true, as he told the Committee, that an affirmative Resolution is not amendable and it was for that reason, I believe, that the Minister of Defence rightly resisted this Amendment. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, I must admit, I should have gone into the Lobby in favour of an Amendment such as this, for the very reason that the affirmative Resolution does not permit of Amendment, and the necessity of introducing legislation is one of the essential safeguards of Parliamentary discussion. But of course the Minister's experience of Amendments to this Bill has been unfortunate and he did not want to be faced with the problem henceforth, or even to have one of his successors confronted henceforth with a revolt of Members of his own side and compelled to give in in a humiliating fashion.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have spent considerable time in debating the date for the expiry of this Bill, unless prolonged by Order in Council, and there has been an unusual display of what must normally occur in the party meetings of Members opposite. This Amendment does raise a question of considerable importance and one which I do not think this Committee ought to discuss with any degree of levity or heat, because we are really considering making the ambit of conscription for young people greater. It is a serious matter for this Committee to determine what will be incorporated in this Clause with regard to the termination or prolongation of this Measure. The right hon. Gentleman was on this occasion commendably frank with the Committee in saying the proposal to prolong by Order in Council was a compromise. He was in my opinion inaccurate in saying the compromise provided for full Parliamentary control. It certainly does not do that. It provides for some degree of Parliamentary control, but no one with any knowledge of the practice of this House can say it provides for full Parliamentary control when there is no power of amending the Order in Council.
This point must be recognised by the Government. Whether you have the Bill with no date for termination in it, so that it can only be brought to an end by an Act repealing it; whether you have the


Bill with a fixed date of 1954 in it and no machinery for prolongation, so that it can only be extended by another Bill; or whether you have extension by Order in Council there is no means whereby the Government of the day can avoid a Debate on the question. I think that one must approach this subject with that in one's mind, and then consider what is the best way of having that Debate so that the wishes of the people and the country can be reflected in the wishes and views of Members of Parliament. We on this side have always taken the view that prolongation of Acts of Parliament by Orders in Council is wrong. We have expressed that view in the Division Lobbies on a number of occasions, and no reason has been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman which would convince us that it would be right on this occasion to depart from the practice that we have followed up to date. Therefore, bearing in mind that whether you have an Order in Council, or a one-Clause Bill extending this Measure from 1954 onwards, there must, in either case, be a Debate, possibly a full Debate, in this House. I, for one, see no reason to depart from the attitude and the course that I have followed on previous occasions when this issue has arisen. It is easy for the right hon. Gentleman, if he is still in charge of the matter when it comes before the House in 1954, if he wishes to extend it, to introduce a one-clause Measure for that purpose, to include it, if one likes in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill or something of that sort, and there really has been no ground put forward by him this evening for the adoption of this machinery for extension of Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Pickthorn: I wish particularly to address the Minister of Defence. It is, of course, the mere negligible bathos of Parliamentary humbug to accuse of rudeness those who propound arguments to which you do not have the answer or which convict you of misstatement of fact. Therefore, I do not in the least resent the accusation of rudeness, but, really, a Minister of Defence is a new office in this country, and one of the reasons why it is a new office is because it was felt to be an office too great for any man to hold short of the Prime Minister. When a Minister of Defence is in charge of a Bill of great constitutional importance, a Bill which is to be forced through by sitting practically

continuously for 36 hours—and I think I have been in the Chamber for 34 of the 36—when that is to be done, it is really necessary for the Minister of Defence to acquaint himself with the simpler principles of the technique which he is discussing. We have had very difficult matters to discuss during the last 36 hours, and any of us could easily fall into technical and even material errors, and no doubt I have myself done so more than once. But that anybody who is in charge should, when challenged, proceed to say "probably" and "that may be so" about matters ascertainable, really is treating this Committee with a contempt. There is another thing the Minister of Defence has said. He said there was a challenge from below the Gangway, when anyone on this side of the Committee was prepared to question the doctrine of mandate in these matters. I do not propose at this hour to detain the Committee to explain what I think the doctrine of mandate means, but I would say shortly that I question—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think the hon. Member will agree that what he is now talking about does not arise on this issue.

Mr. Pickthorn: With respect, I can make quite clear the exact relevance of what I am trying to say. The matter before us is whether we shall, or shall not leave in the Bill a proviso
that His Majesty may by Order in Council substitute for the said day such later date
and so on. The Government may take the responsibility upon themselves of proposing conscription for one year, for two years, for five years, or' for an indefinite period. But, what is seems to me a Government cannot decently do is to impose conscription for a short period, leaving it open for themselves, or their successors, in peace time to continue that period by a process less serious, and less difficult than the process of a Bill. If there were any doubt that that is an improper claim on the part of any Government that doubt would be removed by the excessive emphasis which hon. Members opposite attach to the doctrine of mandate because it is quite clear that whether or not right hon. and hon. Members opposite have a mandate to impose conscription of two, three or five years, what they have not a mandate for is to impose conscription in the way proposed if this proviso is left in the Bill. That is the relevance of what I


was saying about the doctrine of mandate. The Minister of Defence appealed in this connection to the Jarrow by-election result—

Mr. Alexander: Mr. Alexander indicated dissent.

Mr. Pickthorn: He is shaking his head, but I am within the recollection of the Committee—

Mr. Alexander: Surely, the hon. Member wishes to be quite correct. I did not mention Jarrow. I said we were not losing by-elections.

Mr. Pickthorn: Really, on this day, the right hon. Gentleman refers to by-elections and does not mean Jarrow.

Mr. Alexander: On a point of explanation. No doubt the hon. Member will recollect that we have not lost an election since we introduced this Measure.

The Deputy-Chairman: This emphasises the danger of introducing extraneous matters.

Mr. Pickthorn: With respect, there is some relation, and it was not I who introduced the subject. I am surely entitled to reply. The allegation was that the matter was made safe by the avoidance of loss of by-elections, but it was immediately pointed out—

The Deputy-Chairman: Whatever reference was made, it was made on a previous Amendment, and not on the one now under discussion.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think it was made on both occasions. In any case it happened on the same Clause. The point is quite simple; hon. and right hon. Members opposite are backed at Jarrow by someone who was against conscription, that is all.

11 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I want to mention only two arguments in respect of this Amendment. When anyone is introducing in peacetime such a tremendous innovation as compulsory military service, it is essential to set before the country the terms on which it is being introduced. Therefore if the only power we have of prolonging that Measure is by Order in Council, we are not setting a definite term to the operation of compulsory service. We on this bench are against this inno-

vation. There should be a definite term set to it, and at the end of that term the Government should come before the House with a new Bill. My second point is this. It has been argued that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the principle of the draft of the Order in Council and, therefore, will be able to discuss it year by year, but we consider that conscription is such an infringement of civil liberty and such a big thing that the impulse to introduce an Act of Parliament would surely be far greater than the impulse to introduce an Order in Council.

Dr. Morgan: On: a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in Order? He is speaking on a particular proviso to a particular Clause. What he is now saying does not seem to relate to the Amendment which we are considering.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is in Order.

Mr. Roberts: As I was saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—I am told that some hon. Members cannot hear what I am saying, and I will speak up in order that they may hear me. I will bring my second argument again before the Committee. What I said was that conscription was such a tremendous thing that it could only be justified through an Act of Parliament, and that the impulse to bring in an Order in Council is far less than the impulse to bring in an Act of Parliament. We consider that conscription is an evil, and, therefore, when the Government are seeking to renew it they should justify it up to the hilt, by bringing forward an Act of Parliament. It is the only method whereby we can see perfectly the way in which conscription operates in the experimental period. For those two reasons we support this most excellent Amendment. If there is any hon. Member who did not hear my first argument, I will repeat it—

Hon. Members: We heard it.

The Deputy-Chairman: That happens to be the part of the hon. Member's argument which I did hear.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes 97.

Division No. 199.]
AYES.
[11.3 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Hewitson, Captain M.
Price, M. Philips


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Hobson, C. R.
Pritt, D. N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Proctor, W. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Holman, P.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Hoy, J.
Randall, H. E.


Balfour, A.
Hubbard, T.
Ranger, J.


Barton, C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Rhodes, H.


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robens, A.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Irving, W. J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Bing, G. H. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Rogers, G. H R.


Binns, J.
Janner, B.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Blyton, W. R.
Jay, D. P. T.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Boardman, H.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shackleton, E. A. A


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Jeger, Dr. S W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Sharp, Granville


Bowles, F. C. (Nuneaton)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Champion, A. J.
Keenan, W.
Smith, S. H. (Hult, S.W.)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Kenyon, C.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Cobb, F. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Camyns, Dr. L.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sparks, J. A.


Cook, T. F.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Steele, T.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Leonard, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lever, N. H.
Swingler, S.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Levy, B. W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Diamond, J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Dodds, N. N.
McAdam, W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mack, J. D.
Thurtle, Ernest


Durbin, E. F. M.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Tiffany, S.


Dye, S.
McLeavy, F.
Walker, G. H.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
West, D. G.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mitchison, C. R.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Farthing, W. J.
Mort, D. L.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Fletcher, E. C. M. (Islington, E.)
Moyle, A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Foot, M. M
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Gibson, C. W.
Oldfield, W. H.
Willis, E.


Gilzean, A.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J


Gooch, E. G.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wise, Major F. J


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Woods, G. S.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Pargiter, G. A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Zilliacus, K


Gurter, R. J.
Parker, J.



Guy, W. H.
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Mr. Simmons.


Hardy, E. A.
Popplewell, E.





NOES.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S (Southport)


Ayles, W. H.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Digby, S. W.
Langford-Holt, J.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bennett, Sir P.
Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)


Birch, Nigel
Drewe, C.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)


Boothby, R.
Duthie, W. S.
Low, Brig. A. R. W


Bowen, R.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H


Bower, N.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
McGhee, H. G.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Erroll, F. J.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Bracken, Rt Hon. Brendan
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T.
Gage, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Byers, Frank
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Carson, E.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Challen, C.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marsden, Capt. A.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Channon, H.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mellor, Sir J.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Haughton, S. G.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Nally, W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholson, G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Howard, Hon. A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Nutting, Anthony







Orr-Ewing, I. L
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Wadsworth, G.


Pickthorn, K.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Prescott, Stanley
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Price-White, Lt.-Col. D
Studholme, H. G.
Yates, V. F.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Tealing, William



Roberts Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ropner, Col. L
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Mr. Emrys Roberts and


Scollan, T.
Vane, W. M. F.
Professor Gruffydd.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Viant, S. P.

Clause as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Eden: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
It might be opportune to ask the Government what their intentions are now that we are about to approach the new Clauses. It is for the Government to decide whether they shall be discussed after a universal refreshment of mind, or whether we are to continue with the present methods. Any enlightenment that the Front Bench opposite can bring to the situation will be, if not gratefully, at least politely received.

Mr. Alexander: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the discussions through the usual channels this morning, it was arranged, in view of the lengthy discussions on the Bill, that we should deal with the Bill tomorrow as well as today. There were no guarantees given, but we asked for the help of the Committee, with that extension of time for Debate, in getting the Bill tomorrow. There is still a considerable amount of work to be done on the Bill, but I suggest for the consideration of the Committee that we should sit a little longer tonight and get a little further so that we can be sure of getting the Bill to the end of the Committee stage by a reasonable time tomorrow.

Mr. Eden: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will forgive me saying that this is almost back to the Admiralty days, and it is the vaguest nautical definition I have' ever heard. What does "a little further" mean? How far are we to go? How many nautical miles, if I may appeal to the right hon. Gentleman's previous experience, are we to proceed? In other words, how many new Clauses are in the Government's mind? If the Committee is to do useful work, it should know what is expected of it.

Mr. Alexander: We thought if we could finish the next two and a half pages of the Amendments — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] that would cover a proportion of the new Clauses and leave a reasonable day's work for tomorrow, but I am willing to receive suggestions.

Mr. Nally: At a very early hour this morning when a large number of us had sat through the night, it was suggested to us that we might continue, difficult as the circumstances were, and work right through. A number of us continued to sit on that assumption. Then, at 11 o'clock, we were surprised to be asked to break off, for no real reason at all, for at least three hours. There are some of those on both Front Benches, who have had a difficult time—as we all have had in this matter—and who are as tired as we are. I do not dispute that, but now, despite the fact that we threw away more than three hours after eleven o'clock this morning, it is proposed for no conceivable purpose, that at a quarter past eleven at night, we should begin discussions which even at a minimum estimate are bound to carry us well beyond midnight. That means for quite a number of hon. Members, yet another night out of bed. I should not have minded, had the Government been sensible at eleven o'clock this morning. But to be asked at this time of night to make up for something that we could have done at eleven o'clock this morning, is not fair, and I hope we shall not continue the discussions

11.15 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I want to say a word in the same sense as my hon. Friend. This morning shortly before eleven o'clock, I pointed out that there was no purpose to be served by wasting some 31¼ hours, particularly if the effect was to be to add it on to the late hours this evening and the early hours of tomorrow morning. We were at that time assured that that was not the intention, but that an arrangement had been reached through the usual channels which would prevent


our sitting very late tonight and would en- able the Government to get the Bill tomorrow. The Government have done very well about this; we have gone a long way. It is true that the last two Amendments have taken a little time, but except for those, we have made remarkable progress. [Interruption.] That is my view; anyone who holds the contrary view will have the right to say so. I say we have done remarkably well, and although there is a substantial amount still to be done, we can well do it tomorrow with the same co-operation as that which we have enjoyed this afternoon. I hope we shall decide now, after 36 hours or more with just that interval of three hours, which ought never to have taken place, that we have done very well, and may now adjourn until tomorrow morning.

Mr. Alexander: It would perhaps facilitate business if I tried to see whether we could come to an arrangement convenient to all sides of the Committee. We could perhaps meet the situation tomorrow, if we took tonight just the two Government new Clauses, and finished at that point. If all my hon. Friends, in all parts of the Committee, will do their best to help us, we should be able to get the Bill tomorrow.

Mr. Byers: I think we ought to congratulate the Minister and thank him very much for one of his remarkably rapid decisions.

Mr. Eden: I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said, and it seems a reasonable arrangement, which we on this side will certainly not oppose. The only remark I have to make is that I have been looking at the pages of Amendments yet to be discussed, and I do not want to have any misunderstanding. It seems to be pretty heavy work for tomorrow, and I do not think the Government can necessarily guarantee to carry it through. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We cannot; the Government must understand that it is not the Opposition which has been taking up the time of the House We should certainly like to finish tomorrow, but when I look at the number of Amendments that will be left if we stop at this point, I think the Government must bear in mind that they are leaving a pretty heavy task for Friday. They should bear that in mind, and address their minds tomorrow to the prob-

lem of meeting the convenience of the Committee. If they do so we will help them.

Mr. Bing: May I say a word to the Committee on behalf of those people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] In case hon. Members opposite did not hear what I was saying, may I say that I was addressing my remarks principally to this side of the Committee—

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member say he was addressing that side of the Committee. Is it not customary in this Committee to address the Chair?

The Deputy-Chairman: I assumed that the hon. Member was addressing the Chair, since it is customary to address the Chair.

Mr. Bing: I am sorry, but I was not permitted to finish the sentence. I was about to say that I was addressing this side of the Committee through the Chair as is customary. I wanted to say a word on behalf of those hon. Members who up to now have not spoken on these matters but have solidly supported the Government, and who are prepared to support the Government for so long as the Government are prepared to go on. But we ought to make it clear there is a considerable demand on the physical strength of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and perhaps when we come to some consideration of this matter the Committee ought to regard the question—[Interruption.]

Mr. Hogg: Let us go on talking then.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me to hear what the hon. Member is saying.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. I heard the hon. Member say that, through you, Mr. Beaumont, of course, he was only addressing his own side, and you ruled that that was in Order. Why on earth are we to be made to listen?

The Deputy-Chairman: I appreciate the point of that remark, but I was trying to ascertain whether the hon. Member was in Order. Unless I hear what is said, I cannot give a Ruling.

Mr. Bing: This is purely of interest to those hon. Members who attended throughout the night until this morning, when there were only a few Members on


the other side of the Committee. I am very sorry if I excepted these ten or twelve hon. Members who had the courtesy to discuss this matter throughout the night.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be desirable if we now came to a determination with regard to this.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Termination of power to make up civil remuneration.)

(1) The power conferred by section one of the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, to make payments to or in respect of a person ceasing to serve in his civil capacity in order to undertake war service shall not be exercisable in respect of any person who ceases so to serve after such date as may be specified by order of the Minister of Health.

(2) This section shall come into force on the passing of this Act.—[Mr. Aneurin Bevan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope this Clause will receive the support of the Members of the Committee. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will give me their attention. The purpose of the Clause is fairly simple. There is a large number of people in Great Britain at the moment, very largely those in the employ of local authorities, who, under the Act of 1939, are—[Interruption.] May I have the attention of the Committee? Hon. Members are not obliged to listen; they can leave the Chamber.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is not obliged to speak.

Mr. Bevan: The purpose of the Clause is this—and I am certain that if hon. Members opposite will listen, they will agree with its purpose because it removes a certain anomaly. There is a large number of men, and some women, in the employ of local authorities who, under the Act of 1939, are having their Service pay made up to the civilian rate. This continues at the present time, and would apply to those persons called up under the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act. This, we suggest, was a perfectly proper thing to do in time of war, but it seems to the Government that it is quite unreasonable that a certain section of the population should be so favoured that, when they are in the Services in time of peace, they should enjoy civilian rates

of pay alongside other people getting merely Service pay. This is the anomaly which we want to bring to an end.
So long as the emergency continues, the present Statute applies, and I am advised that we cannot end the war emergency piecemeal. One has to amend the emergency ruling as a whole, and not in part. Therefore, in order that these persons may not enjoy this privilege above the other members of the community, we ask for this Clause which gives powers to enable local authorities to cease these payments which bring Service emoluments up to civilian rates. The time spent in the armed Services will be regarded as time counting for purposes of superannuation, and the law is not being amended in that respect.

Captain Marsden: It is such a rare and refreshing thing to get some realism, and common sense, and an expression of equal favour to everybody, from the Front Bench opposite, that I am so overcome with this sensibility as to welcome the words of the Minister of Health. In the past we have had men going into the Services with their pay made 'up to what they would have received in civilian life. I understand that that will no longer be the case. That is very sensible, very surprising, and I would like to support it.

Mr. Eden: What has been said by the right hon. Gentleman is something with which we fully agree. But I think that it would be in order if I asked at this stage for some enlightenment as to the position of civil servants. This Clause deals only with employees of local authorities.

Mr. Bevan: I understand that it is not necessary to have an Act of Parliament determining the position of civil servants. That can be done by Departmental agreement.

11.30 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the information he has given to the Committee? May I ask him, however, whether a decision has been reached regarding civil servants?

The Chairman: I can permit the hon. and gallant Member to ask a question, and allow the Minister to answer; but I am afraid I cannot allow discussions of that matter on this Clause.

Major Legge-Bourke: I was really wishing to put a supplementary question arising out of the question which I had already put.

Mr. Bevan: I can put the Committee in possession of the facts without difficulty. Discussions are taking place, but no decision has yet been reached regarding the date. It seems to us to be a perfectly equitable proposition that we should terminate the privileges for both classes at the same time, and that is why we are taking power to make the Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Safeguarding of employment.)

(1) If the employer of any person liable to be called upon to serve for a period of whole-time service terminates his employment without his consent before the date on which he is required to present himself in accordance with an enlistment notice, and does so solely or mainly by reason of any duties or liabilities which that person is, or may become, liable to perform or discharge by reason of his being, or being liable to be, called upon to serve for that term, the employer shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds; and the court by which he is convicted may order him to pay to the person whose employment has been terminated, as compensation for any loss suffered or likely to - be suffered by him by reason of the termination, a sum not exceeding an amount equal to five weeks' remuneration at the rate at which his remuneration was last payable to him by the employer

(2) If the employment of any person is terminated by his employer solely or mainly by reason of any duties or liabilities which he is, or may become, liable to perform or discharge in pursuance of this Act during his term of part-time service, that person shall be entitled to recover from his employer as compensation for any loss suffered or likely to be suffered by him by reason of the termination of his employment a sum not exceeding an amount equal to five weeks' remuneration at the rate at which his remuneration was last payable to him by the employer; and in case of dispute he may, within such time as may be prescribed by regulations under section sixteen of the Reinstatement Act, apply to a Reinstatement Committee for the determination of his right to recover compensation, and if that right is established to the satisfaction of the Committee they shall make an order for the payment by the employer to the applicant of such sum as they consider him to be entitled to recover.

(3) If in any proceedings under this section the court or the committee, as the case may be, is of opinion that there is reasonable cause to believe that the duties or liabilities afore-

said caused or contributed to the termination of the employment, the employment shall be deemed to have been terminated by reason of those duties or liabilities unless the employer proves that the termination was for a reason unconnected therewith.

(4) The following provisions of the Reinstatement Act shall, with the necessary modifications, apply for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section as they apply for the purposes of that Act, that is to say:
section eight (which relates to Reinstatement Committees, umpires and deputy umpires);
section ten (which relates to appeals from those Committees), except so much thereof as defines the expression "the employer";
subsection (2) of section eleven (which relates to the recovery of sums ordered to be paid by those Committees);
subsection (4) of section eleven (which relates to the institution of proceedings by authorised officers);
section sixteen (which relates to regulations);
subsections (3) and (4) of section seventeen (which relate to evidence);
section eighteen (which relates to the priority of debts);
section nineteen (which relates to expenses), and the definition of "the Minister" in section twenty.—[Mr. Isaacs.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I have to submit to the Committee the second of the Government Clauses which it is now agreed are to be the last to be taken this evening. It is a very long Clause, and is the redraft of one originally circulated. Therefore, I propose, if it meets with the convenience of the Committee, to give a brief statement of its contents; but if required I shall be ready to give a more detailed explanation of the several Subsections. Briefly, Subsection (1) makes it an offence for an employer to dismiss a worker solely or mainly because the man is liable to be called up for whole-time service. The penalty is £50, and the employer also may be ordered to compensate the employee up to five weeks' pay. There will be no offence if the employment is terminated by mutual consent. This is on the same lines as that which obtains at present. Subsection (2) gives similar compensation to any employee dismissed because of his obligation for part-time service. In this case, disputes are to be settled by the reinstatement committees, just as reinstatement disputes are at present. In this Clause, relating to part-time service, there is no penal sanction against the employer, apart from his liability for compensation. Subsection (3) says that


where there is reasonable cause to believe that an employee's liability or duties were the reason for his dismissal, the onus will be on the employer to prove the contrary. That is not so onerous on the employer as was proposed in the original Clause 13. Subsection (4) applies the new circumstances to the present reinstatement provisions, which have worked with complete smoothness and satisfaction to all parties. The only substantial change is that the minimum of 26 weeks' reinstatement is reduced to 13 weeks, if the previous employment was not more than 13 weeks. That is a very brief summary, but I shall be glad to give further explanations should any hon. Member desire them.

Commander Galbraith: I want to ask the Minister for a further explanation of why these two systems have been introduced. I do not gather why, in the first instance, the matter should go to the courts, and in the second instance, to the reinstatement committees. We have always paid deference to the courts and I would like to know why two systems are included. There is just one other point. I understand the rule of law today on matters of compensation is that where the employee is receiving remuneration, the compensation is adjusted in relation to the remuneration received. I would like to know if that still stands under this Clause?

Mr. Isaacs: So far as compensation is concerned, there is no change in the existing rules at all. With regard to the first, we have had to consider the fact that when a man goes away for 12 months on fulltime service it may be argued that when he comes back it is a reinstatement. But when he is away for a matter of two or three weeks, then the Clause makes arrangements for safeguarding his con tract of employment. It is considered re-employment, if you can appreciate the difference between reinstatement and reemployment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Committee report Progress; and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.